The Odio Incident

[Tim Gratz]

Joan Mellen wrote (in her article):

Among those closest to Bobby was a man still living in Florida today, Angelo Murgado, who, during the summer of 1963, traveled to New Orleans on Bobby’s behalf. Moving among “Castro’s agents, double agents, and Cubans working for the C.I.A.,” as he explained to me in Miami recently, Murgado hoped to “neutralize” a future assassin.

I found this paragraph in her article most interesting.

As noted above, I think Oswald might also have been working to try to stop an assassination.

Even though the group with which Odio's parents were associated seems less radical than some, the trip to Odio's apartment could have been part of a plan to try to "flush out" violent Cubans. They could have assumed Odio would repeat the remark attributed to Oswald and that it might draw out anti-Castro Cubans associated with Odio's group who hated Kennedy enough to kill him.

This analysis of the Odio incident seems more logical than that it was an attempt to link Oswald to Cuba. I do not argue that the true purpose of Odio's visitors was to solicit funds.

Why did Murgado not tell his friend Bobby that deTorres was part of the assassination?

I have multiple responses.

First, I am not yet convinced that this is what Murgado believes. Nor do I necessarily believe it has yet been established that deTorres was part of the plot.

Even if Murgado does believe that deTorres was part of the plot, do we know he reached that conclusion prior to the murder of RFK? I don't think we do know that yet.

But let us assume that after the assassination Murgado concluded that his buddy deTorres was part of the plot that killed JFK. Why then did he not tell RFK? Two possibilities suggest themselves. Many have asserted that deTorres was an "enforcer" who killed witnesses, everyone from Masferrer to Mary Mayer, Well, if that is the case, Murgado could have kept his mouth shut out of sheer fear.

The other possibility is that Murgado was monumentally embarrassed that he had failed in his mission to protect JFK. He might not have wanted to reveal the magnitude of his failure to RFK.

Or he could have feared that by coming forward he might implicate himself in the assassination despite his innocence. If you were an anti-Castro Cuban who had been hanging with Oswald, would you have come forward? Even Odio herself did not volunteer her story.

Pat wrote:

The whole thing reeks of a man with his back against the wall clutching at straws. If Murgado was in Dallas, he was there as part of the plot. This cover story stinks.

Pat, why would Murgado's back be against the wall? I have no knowledge that anyone was going to link him to anything. His name was not even on anyone's radar screen, so far as I know.

Edited September 4, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

I suspect some of this discussion should be deferred until we have had a chance to read Professer Mellen's book. Until then we are just speculating about what Murgado told her.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Joan Mellen wrote (in her article):

Among those closest to Bobby was a man still living in Florida today, Angelo Murgado, who, during the summer of 1963, traveled to New Orleans on Bobby’s behalf. Moving among “Castro’s agents, double agents, and Cubans working for the C.I.A.,” as he explained to me in Miami recently, Murgado hoped to “neutralize” a future assassin.

I found this paragraph in her article most interesting.

As noted above, I think Oswald might also have been working to try to stop an assassination.

Even though the group with which Odio's parents were associated seems less radical than some, the trip to Odio's apartment could have been part of a plan to try to "flush out" violent Cubans.

Pointless exercise.  All the "violent" Cubans were already well know to the US authorities because they were being subsidized by the US authorities, via CIA and select military teats.  The Odios were on the other end of the exile spectrum, entirely. 

Odio's parents were involved with Manolo Ray, whose MRP, and later JURE, were not endorsed by CIA, precisely because he/they weren't violent enough, and didn't advocate a return to Batista-style autocratic rule.  Ray wanted to pursue nominally socialist policies, but without the brutal means employed by Castro to achieve them.  Hence, he and his approach were denounced by Howard Hunt and various gusano leaders as "Fidelismo sin Fidel" [Castroism without Castro.]

As you try to parse the minefield of various possibilities on Odio's doorstep, it is important to bear in mind that Oswald was purportedly visiting an exile family affiliated with the exile group least likely to be endorsed by CIA and other gusano groups.  If one posits that another invasion was pending, and a newly minted substitute government was covertly being assembled, having the about-to-be assassin palling around with the Odios would neutralize any chance of Manolo Ray being involved in that new, post-Castro government.  The Kennedys didn't find Ray and JURE abhorent; CIA did.  Perhaps that will help illuminate for you who placed "Oswald" in that position.     

They could have assumed Odio would repeat the remark attributed to Oswald and that it might draw out anti-Castro Cubans associated with Odio's group who hated Kennedy enough to kill him.

If "Oswald" was part of an exercise in which "the remark attributed to Oswald" had a purpose, then "Oswald" would have made the remark himself, not merely had it attributed to him.  The whole point of the exercise was to place Oswald in proximity to the Odios - thus pre-emptively tainting JURE and preventing its inclusion from a post-Castro government - and then continue to portray him as an assassin on the cusp of acting against Kennedy.

This analysis of the Odio incident seems more logical than that it was an attempt to link Oswald to Cuba.  I do not argue that the true purpose of Odio's visitors was to solicit funds.

Why did Murgado not tell his friend Bobby that deTorres was part of the assassination?

I have multiple responses.

First, I am not yet convinced that this is what Murgado believes.  Nor do I necessarily believe it has yet been established that deTorres was part of the plot.

Even if Murgado does believe that deTorres was part of the plot, do we know he reached that conclusion prior to the murder of RFK?  I don't think we do know that yet.

If that thought has never crossed Murgado's mind, then he must be incredibly stupid. 

But let us assume that after the assassination Murgado concluded that his buddy deTorres was part of the plot that killed JFK.  Why then did he not tell RFK?  Two possibilities suggest themselves.  Many have asserted that deTorres was an "enforcer" who killed witnesses, everyone from Masferrer to Mary Mayer,  Well, if that is the case, Murgado could have kept his mouth shut out of sheer fear.

You place a remarkable premium on self-preservation in your own analyses, per Castro's alleged pre-emptive murder of Kennedy.  Surely you can understand it when applied in other situations.

The other possibility is that Murgado was monumentally embarrassed that he had failed in his mission to protect JFK.  He might not have wanted to reveal the magnitude of his failure to RFK.

What about fear of retribution from RFK?  "Oh, by the way, Bobby... you know that other Cuban guy who helped me do the dance with Oswald on Odio's doorstep?  Well, I think he had something to do with offing your brother, but I didn't......"  You think that'd fly very far, Tim? 

Or he could have feared that by coming forward he might implicate himself in the assassination despite his innocence.  If you were an anti-Castro Cuban who had been hanging with Oswald, would you have come forward?  Even Odio herself did not volunteer her story.

Pat wrote:

The whole thing reeks of a man with his back against the wall clutching at straws. If Murgado was in Dallas, he was there as part of the plot. This cover story stinks.

Pat, why would Murgado's back be against the wall?  I have no knowledge that anyone was going to link him to anything.  His name was not even on anyone's radar screen, so far as I know.

Only because FBI yawned in complete disinterest, and then merely went through the motions in identifying the "Oswald" companions who visited the Odios, knowingly providing the WC with a false conclusion, and only when it was too late to be clarified prior to the issuance of the WC's report.  Murgado would have had no reason to count upon that fact, unless he was a Bureau operative himself, and the revelation he was with Oswald would have been sufficiently embarassing to Hoover to merit being covered up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited September 4, 2005 by Robert Charles-Dunne

[Robert Howard]

Joan Mellen wrote (in her article):

Among those closest to Bobby was a man still living in Florida today, Angelo Murgado, who, during the summer of 1963, traveled to New Orleans on Bobby’s behalf. Moving among “Castro’s agents, double agents, and Cubans working for the C.I.A.,” as he explained to me in Miami recently, Murgado hoped to “neutralize” a future assassin.

I found this paragraph in her article most interesting.

As noted above, I think Oswald might also have been working to try to stop an assassination.

Even though the group with which Odio's parents were associated seems less radical than some, the trip to Odio's apartment could have been part of a plan to try to "flush out" violent Cubans.

Pointless exercise.  All the "violent" Cubans were already well know to the US authorities because they were being subsidized by the US authorities, via CIA and select military teats.  The Odios were on the other end of the exile spectrum, entirely. 

Odio's parents were involved with Manolo Ray, whose MRP, and later JURE, were not endorsed by CIA, precisely because he/they weren't violent enough, and didn't advocate a return to Batista-style autocratic rule.  Ray wanted to pursue nominally socialist policies, but without the brutal means employed by Castro to achieve them.  Hence, he and his approach were denounced by Howard Hunt and various gusano leaders as "Fidelismo sin Fidel" [Castroism without Castro.]

As you try to parse the minefield of various possibilities on Odio's doorstep, it is important to bear in mind that Oswald was purportedly visiting an exile family affiliated with the exile group least likely to be endorsed by CIA and other gusano groups.  If one posits that another invasion was pending, and a newly minted substitute government was covertly being assembled, having the about-to-be assassin palling around with the Odios would neutralize any chance of Manolo Ray being involved in that new, post-Castro government.  The Kennedys didn't find Ray and JURE abhorent; CIA did.  Perhaps that will help illuminate for you who placed "Oswald" in that position.     

They could have assumed Odio would repeat the remark attributed to Oswald and that it might draw out anti-Castro Cubans associated with Odio's group who hated Kennedy enough to kill him.

If "Oswald" was part of an exercise in which "the remark attributed to Oswald" had a purpose, then "Oswald" would have made the remark himself, not merely had it attributed to him.  The whole point of the exercise was to place Oswald in proximity to the Odios - thus pre-emptively tainting JURE and preventing its inclusion from a post-Castro government - and then continue to portray him as an assassin on the cusp of acting against Kennedy.

This analysis of the Odio incident seems more logical than that it was an attempt to link Oswald to Cuba.  I do not argue that the true purpose of Odio's visitors was to solicit funds.

Why did Murgado not tell his friend Bobby that deTorres was part of the assassination?

I have multiple responses.

First, I am not yet convinced that this is what Murgado believes.  Nor do I necessarily believe it has yet been established that deTorres was part of the plot.

Even if Murgado does believe that deTorres was part of the plot, do we know he reached that conclusion prior to the murder of RFK?  I don't think we do know that yet.

If that thought has never crossed Murgado's mind, then he must be incredibly stupid. 

But let us assume that after the assassination Murgado concluded that his buddy deTorres was part of the plot that killed JFK.  Why then did he not tell RFK?  Two possibilities suggest themselves.  Many have asserted that deTorres was an "enforcer" who killed witnesses, everyone from Masferrer to Mary Mayer,  Well, if that is the case, Murgado could have kept his mouth shut out of sheer fear.

You place a remarkable premium on self-preservation in your own analyses, per Castro's alleged pre-emptive murder of Kennedy.  Surely you can understand it when applied in other situations.

The other possibility is that Murgado was monumentally embarrassed that he had failed in his mission to protect JFK.  He might not have wanted to reveal the magnitude of his failure to RFK.

What about fear of retribution from RFK?  "Oh, by the way, Bobby... you know that other Cuban guy who helped me do the dance with Oswald on Odio's doorstep?  Well, I think he had something to do with offing your brother, but I didn't......"  You think that'd fly very far, Tim? 

Or he could have feared that by coming forward he might implicate himself in the assassination despite his innocence.  If you were an anti-Castro Cuban who had been hanging with Oswald, would you have come forward?  Even Odio herself did not volunteer her story.

Pat wrote:

The whole thing reeks of a man with his back against the wall clutching at straws. If Murgado was in Dallas, he was there as part of the plot. This cover story stinks.

Pat, why would Murgado's back be against the wall?  I have no knowledge that anyone was going to link him to anything.  His name was not even on anyone's radar screen, so far as I know.

Only because FBI yawned in complete disinterest, and then merely went through the motions in identifying the "Oswald" companions who visited the Odios, knowingly providing the WC with a false conclusion, and only when it was too late to be clarified prior to the issuance of the WC's report.  Murgado would have had no reason to count upon that fact, unless he was a Bureau operative himself, and the revelation he was with Oswald would have been sufficiently embarassing to Hoover to merit being covered up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Everything that has been written up to the present about Angel and Leopoldo which is obviously quite a bit, implies that they were the ones who were steering Oswald into the assassination of JFK. Tim's point that perhaps we should wait until Joan Mellen's book comes out to weigh all the facts is one that I think belies the point that until then we are just splitting hairs about all of this.

[Tim Gratz]

Re Robert's post, the theory that Oswald was taken to Odio's door so that when he was blamed for the assassination blame would fall on the Manola Ray group makes no sense to me whatsover. Why would the Manola Ray group want to kill Kennedy, for heaven's sake? If Robert's analysis is correct about the politics of the group, the Kennedys were favorable to the Manola Ray operation while the CIA would not. Why would ANYONE think that a group friendly to JFK had killed him? And for that matter, why would anyone think that Oswald was associated with that group merely because he had once appeared at Silvia Odio's doostep? (There is no evidence that Oswald ever tried to infiltrate the Manola Ray organization as he had, for instance, tried to infiltrate Interpen in December of 1962.)

It also makes little sense to argue that it was the plan of the conspirators to blame the assassination both on Castro AND on the Manola ray group.

Robert asks if the plan (as I speculate) was for Oswald to talk about killing Kennedy to draw out violently anti-Kennedy Cubans, why would Oswald not make such remarks to Odio herself (rather than having Leopoldo repeat them to her)?

Well, Robert notes that the Manola Ray group was noted for being anti-violent (even though it was involved in one of the early efforts to kill Castro). Perhaps Oswald made that remark to Leopoldo precisely because he was concerned about the people with whom Leopoldo and Murgado were associated (perhaps he was concerned about Leopoldo himself). It was not necessarily Oswald's intention to have the remark repeated to Odio (if in fact Oswald's handlers were not concerned about the members of Odio's group).

[Stuart Wexler]

Let me suggest a different reason for posing as JURE members. It may not be popular with the group, because it assumes that, at least to outsiders, Oswald was viewed as a leftist. I believe, that in his own mind, Oswald may genuinely have been a leftist; but that playing spy games trumped ideology. That is neither here nor there. If as, I suggest, outsiders suspected Oswald was truly a leftist, AND, they wanted to manipulate Oswald into a plot-- either a Castro plot (I think that was the first order of business) or a JFK plot (the contingency plan)-- then the way to do it would be to do what Martino suggested... pose as pro-Castroites.

JURE was, as Robert Charles-Dunne pointed out, a leftist organization. Indeed, if one reads the documentation, they were very much like Castroism without Castro.

So from that perspective, they may have been in a better position to manipulate Oswald into action. I'm not saying Oswald would have gone along with any murder plot *internally*; but to an outside who cannot read his intentions, this might seem the best opportunity to manipulate him.

-Stu

Re Robert's post, the theory that Oswald was taken to Odio's door so that when he was blamed for the assassination blame would fall on the Manola Ray group makes no sense to me whatsover.  Why would the Manola Ray group want to kill Kennedy, for heaven's sake?  If Robert's analysis is correct about the politics of the group, the Kennedys were favorable to the Manola Ray operation while the CIA would not.  Why would ANYONE think that a group friendly to JFK had killed him?  And for that matter, why would anyone think that Oswald was associated with that group merely because he had once appeared at Silvia Odio's doostep?  (There is no evidence that Oswald ever tried to infiltrate the Manola Ray organization as he had, for instance, tried to infiltrate Interpen in December of 1962.)

It also makes little sense to argue that it was the plan of the conspirators to blame the assassination both on Castro AND on the Manola ray group.

Robert asks if the plan (as I speculate) was for Oswald to talk about killing Kennedy to draw out violently anti-Kennedy Cubans, why would Oswald not make such remarks to Odio herself (rather than having Leopoldo repeat them to her)?

Well, Robert notes that the Manola Ray group was noted for being anti-violent (even though it was involved in one of the early efforts to kill Castro).  Perhaps Oswald made that remark to Leopoldo precisely because he was concerned about the people with whom Leopoldo and Murgado were associated (perhaps he was concerned about Leopoldo himself).  It was not necessarily Oswald's intention to have the remark repeated to Odio (if in fact Oswald's handlers were not concerned about the members of Odio's group).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Tim Gratz]

Stuart, do you suggest that Leopoldo was posing as a pro-Castroite?

I assume you do not consider Murgado to be part of the plot against JFK since he was apparently a long-time Kennedy supporter.

[Larry Hancock]

Tim, a few observations:

1) Sylvia Odio was asked to write fund raising letters for her two visitors; we don't know what they would have asked her to say specifically because she turned them down. However, personal letters of endorsement referencing JURE, signed by Sylvia - who personally associated with Ray - could have been used to contaminate JURE in many ways. Certainly if such letters had been planted on Oswald or associated with him even short of an assassination, given his active pro-Castro stance, it would have been more political ammunition against Ray within the Cuban community.

Everything doesn't have to tie to the attack in Dallas; in fact there is good reason to belive the plan as of the Odio visit may not have jelled at all as far as an attack in Dallas. Only a few weeks earlier Oswald had been writting letters about a move to the East Coast.

2) There is no concrete reason to associate Angelo's agenda with Leopoldo's; nor to associate the letter request with the call afterwards - based on the data we have so far. There is no particular reason to think either Angelo or Oswald knew about the follow-up call, indeed there is good reason to think Leopoldo was working his own separate agenda.

3) The visit could have been used to "contaminate" JURE through association with a very pro-Castro, Marxist, Russian defector may be very relevant to Angelo's agenda while Leopoldo's may have been setting up Oswald for something more violent.

4) The autonomous group project which started in 1963 had multiple players, Artime and Williams and Ray. Assuming the plan had worked, Castro had been eliminated and a coup successful, you can bet that the next step would have been a direct conflict between Artime and Ray. And unfortunately the exiles were not ones to set aside such conflicts until after their primary objective was achived. Given all that some sort of political effort against JURE makes a great deal of sense even without the assassination plot coming into play.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Re Robert's post, the theory that Oswald was taken to Odio's door so that when he was blamed for the assassination blame would fall on the Manola Ray group makes no sense to me whatsover. 

No surprise there.  Since the day you made anti-Castroism your full-time avocation, there is much that you either don't comprehend or pretend not to.

Why would the Manola Ray group want to kill Kennedy, for heaven's sake? 

They didn't.  Neither did the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.  However, you saw how popular that organization was after the assassination, right?  Had Oswald been a Boy Scout Troop Leader in '63, post-assassination Lord Baden-Powell's group would have been dust, too.  No matter how dim the self-portrait you offer us, Tim, we know that you aren't as stupid as you pretend to be by asking such questions. 

If Robert's analysis is correct about the politics of the group, the Kennedys were favorable to the Manola Ray operation while the CIA would not. 

That could be something of a clue for you, Sherlock.

Why would ANYONE think that a group friendly to JFK had killed him? 

  Nobody thought that the FPCC killed Kennedy either, but its proximity to Oswald - just as casually innocent as the encounter with Odio's JURE - did terminal damage didn't it?  Why, a reasonably intelligent person might even conclude that Oswald's paper-thin allegiance to FPCC was designed to achieve precisely that result.  And, since JURE was the Castro-lite alternative bruited to replace El Jefe, a reasonably intelligent person might conclude that an attempt to taint JURE with Oswald - a la FPCC - would kill two birds with one stone: the one currently holding power, and the one being favoured by the White House sponsor as the replacement.

CIA wasn't partial to either of them, as you know.  That could be something of a clue to you too, Sherlock. 

Moreover, while Kennedy was the most moderate man Castro could anticipate in the White House, you nevertheless blame him for killing Kennedy.  Despite the back-channel peace feelers; despite the meetings involving Daniel, Howard, Attwood and Lechuga; despite the olive-branch speeches of possible reconciliation, you continue to peddle that fiction.  To rephrase your own question, "Why would ANYONE think that a Cuban leader then trying to achieve detente with JFK had killed him?"  You might want to seek out a pertinent passage from your Bible, Tim; it's a little item recounted by Matthew about straining on a gnat but swallowing a camel. 

And for that matter, why would anyone think that Oswald was associated with that group merely because he had once appeared at Silvia Odio's doostep? 

  First, we must recall that if "Oswald" and his crew only showed up "once," it was solely because Ms. Odio made plain her reluctance to indulge them.  Who knows what might have transpired had Leopoldo's charade been more convincing, or had Ms. Odio been more genial than she was astute?

Yet again we see a certain disingenuity in the very question.  In order to knock down your own strawman, you distort what's been suggested and then mock the result of your own fabrication.  It has never been suggested that by "Oswald" appearing at Odio's transom, FBI would immediately suspect JURE for the subsequent killing.  It would imply, however, that JURE's membership included the kind of loose cannons who hang out with lone nut assassins.  So, maybe JURE's not the kind of organization that the US would like to see running a post-Castro Cuba.  It is through provocations such as this that otherwise blameless parties have their potential neutralized and their futures foreshortened. 

It is precisely the kind of political sabotage indulged in professionally by intelligence agencies, a fact you should well know if you've read even half of the books you insist should be read by others.  That could be something of a clue to you too, Sherlock.

 

(There is no evidence that Oswald ever tried to infiltrate the Manola Ray organization as he had, for instance, tried to infiltrate Interpen in December of 1962.)

Now it appears you've been taking large hits from Gerry Hemming's oxygen mask.  You might have cited FPCC, or even DRE, with some justification, since it is well known that Oswald tried vainly to ingratiate himself with both.  If you have any citations for an Oswald approach to Interpen, please post them.  In so doing, perhaps you could also differentiate between actual evidence and Hemming's own extravagantly grandiose recollections, since the two only rarely intersect when it comes to the topic of Oswald.

It also makes little sense to argue that it was the plan of the conspirators to blame the assassination both on Castro AND on the Manola ray group.

Neutralizing both Castro and JURE's Castro-lite alternative is called killing two birds with one stone.  It may not have furthered Kennedy's course, but it certainly would have served CIA's cause.  That could be something of a clue to you too, Sherlock.

As Larry Hancock has already astutely observed, there may have been several agendas being forwarded the night that Ms. Odio received her visitors, some of them overlapping, some perhaps mutually exclusive.

Robert asks if the plan (as I speculate) was for Oswald to talk about killing Kennedy to draw out violently anti-Kennedy Cubans, why would Oswald not make such remarks to Odio herself (rather than having Leopoldo repeat them to her)?

Well, Robert notes that the Manola Ray group was noted for being anti-violent (even though it was involved in one of the early efforts to kill Castro). 

Amador Odio was imprisoned because he had provided shelter to a fleeing anti-Castro Cuban who had been involved in trying to whack Castro.  We don't know the extent of Senor Odio's involvement over and above that single fact.  Perhaps being a good Samaritan was his sole crime.  If so, that attempt on Castro's life didn't involve Ray or his group in the machinations of other more action-oriented exile outfits.

Perhaps Oswald made that remark to Leopoldo precisely because he was concerned about the people with whom Leopoldo and Murgado were associated (perhaps he was concerned about Leopoldo himself).  It was not necessarily Oswald's intention to have the remark repeated to Odio (if in fact Oswald's handlers were not concerned about the members of Odio's group).

The one thing you seem determined to presuppose is that Oswald did make the remarks attributed to him by Leopoldo.  Given that you have learned of this third-hand, from a secondary source whose identity you don't even know, one wonders why you would accept as genuine words thusly attributed to Oswald, that are the polar opposite of everything else we know him to have said about Kennedy and the Cubans. 

Had Oswald also said to Carlos Bringuier "Kennedy's the problem and should be killed by Cubans," [or words to that effect], it would offer some confirmation for your suspicions.  In the absence of a single other instance of Oswald uttering such a direct, threatening phrase, I would suggest that Leopoldo's report is less a case of truthful observation, and moreso a case of putting words in Oswald's mouth, for a specific purpose.  This dovetails with the Parrot Jungle incident, and even with a few of the Sports Drome rifle range incidents, designed to paint Oswald in advance of the assassination as a Kennedy-hating marksman of some skill.  All the cited incidents involved Cubans, you may wish to recall, but not Oswald.

To date, we still don't even know with certainty that the man who appeared on Ms. Odio's doorstep was Oswald.       

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited September 5, 2005 by Robert Charles-Dunne

[Tim Gratz]

Robert wrote (in part):

To date, we still don't even know with certainty that the man who appeared on Ms. Odio's doorstep was Oswald.

According to Professor Mellen, Murgado told her in June of this year that he was at Odio's door, with Oswald.

For all your disparaging comments, Robert, I think the Forum members will remember that I am the first person to publicize (both here on the Forum and in "Solares Hill", the identities of Angel and Leopoldo. My source, of course, was Gerry Hemming, another individual you appear, for whatever reason, very anxious to deprecate.

And in my opinion this may be one of the most important developments in the case in several years. As you knmow, the mystery of who were the men at Odio's door has puzzled assassination researchers for over forty years. We do not yet know what information may be revealed as a result.

I assume you were well-read enough to know that after the Interpen people were released from the Monroe County (Key West) jail and traveled to Miami Lee Harvey Oswald approached one of Hemming's men. Shortly thereafter he called in to the Allen Courtney radio show when Hemming and Davis were appearing on the show, again asking to involve himself with Hemming's organization.

I will comment on other parts of your post later.

[Tim Gratz]

Robert wrote:

Despite the back-channel peace feelers; despite the meetings involving Daniel, Howard, Attwood and Lechuga; despite the olive-branch speeches of possible reconciliation, you continue to peddle that fiction. To rephrase your own question, "Why would ANYONE think that a Cuban leader then trying to achieve detente with JFK had killed him?"

Gee, Robert, now it is my turn to suggest you cannot be as ignorant as this question appears!

If, as most people think, Cubela was an agent provocateur, then Castro had every reason to believe that the CIA was initiating yet another effort to kill him, one which Cubela had been assured had the full blessings of the Kennedys (whether or not it did we can debate until the cows come home). Ever heard of self-defense?

Or how about the sabotage efforts that the CIA was undertaking against Cuba the very week before the Kennedy assassination, efforts approved in a meeting in which RFK was an active participant. How about the planned second invasion of Cuba?

Castro, my friend, was the biggest beneficiary of the assassination. It may have kept LBJ out of prison and elevated him to the presidency, but it saved Castro's life and his regime. Motive alone does not prove participation, of course, but to claim Castro had no motive is--well, it's risible.

[Tim Gratz]

Robert wrote:

Moreover, while Kennedy was the most moderate man Castro could anticipate in the White House, you nevertheless blame him for killing Kennedy. Despite the back-channel peace feelers; despite the meetings involving Daniel, Howard, Attwood and Lechuga; despite the olive-branch speeches of possible reconciliation, you continue to peddle that fiction. To rephrase your own question, "Why would ANYONE think that a Cuban leader then trying to achieve detente with JFK had killed him?"

From Henry Hurt's "Reasonable Doubt:

Today, all that can be said is that whatever his connection, if any, Castro was better served than any other leader in the world by [JFK's] death." (P. 345)

Robert, Castro could hardly call a president plotting his immonent demise "moderate"; murder is about as extreme an action as one can take, I would suppose. And of course it matters not whether JFK or RFK had actually endorsed the Cubela plot. What matters is that Castro had every reason to believe they had. I assume you do not dispute that Fitzgerald so told Cubela.

Edited September 6, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

I have been called many names on this Forum, some of which I would not even want to repeat.

I hardly thought things could get worse.

But in his latest post, Robert goes so far as to claim that I am not as stupid as I pretend to be! I resent that, sir. How can you claim to know that I am not as stupid as I pretend to be? Robert, I would never assume to question your . . . nah, I won't go there!

Edited September 6, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Professor Mellen wrote (in the article published in last Friday's "Solares Hill":

Bobby discovered that Oswald was working for the FBI, a fact brought to the attention of the Warren Commission and confirmed for the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s by an FBI employee, William Walter.

Can someone bring me "up to speed" on William Walter? Was he a credible witness?

[James Richards]

Wasn't William Walter the guy on duty in the New Orleans FBI office when the telex came in warning of the assassination in Dallas?

Edited September 6, 2005 by James Richards