The Odio Incident

[Mark Knight]

Mr. Hemming,

Excuse me for being an amatuer in this investigation. But I believe I caught on quite some time ago that the lobbing of nukes was a real possibility had the investigation of the JFK assassination actually revealed the truth.

And when ACTUAL national security issues are involved, I agree that the public has no "divine" right to the truth. But after witnessing all the bullsh*t that has been swept under the rug in the holy name of "national security" over the past 42 years [i'm only 50, so I couldn't possibly have witnessed much more than that and actually understood any of it], I wonder just how much of what we're told is "for our own good" rather than having any remote connection with the truth.

While I don't think anything you might reveal would put your life in danger anymore [just a guess...'cause I figure anyone who actually cares, that was involved, is probably dead, in a vegetative state, or sitting on a beach thousands of miles away sipping drinks with umbrellas in 'em, knowing that by now there are so many crackpot theories out there that another one implicating THEM would be like another grain of sand on the beach], I can understand the potential economic implications of your telling of the entire story.

I know it's been said that history is just the winners' version of what happened, but I would hope that you could eventually tell your story and set the record straight, as you know it, for the sake of history as well.

While you've revealed a lot of tantalizing bits and pieces, I just don't have the inside information necessary to crack all your cryptic comments [but some read more clearly after they've had a few days to sink in and mesh with other known elements]. Rather than antagonize you, I'd rather see you keep posting your comments and tidbits...because, eventually, I might just learn enough to end up asking the right questions myself. Just hope neither of us runs out of time before that happens.

Edited September 9, 2005 by Mark Knight

[Robert Howard]

9/11 and 11/12

Here is a story by Joan Mellen as published (by Mark Howell) in the September 2, 2005 "Key West Citizen":  (She is, of course, the author of the soon-to-be published "A Farewell to Justice"):

In my own research, I discovered that Robert F. Kennedy was organizing his own clandestine plots against Fidel Castro. Bobby’s instruction to the team of Cubans he had assembled in Miami was twofold. It was to discover a means of ridding the Kennedy administration of Castro. It was no less to protect his brother from the murderous impulses of an anti-Castro Cuban incensed by John F. Kennedy’s refusal to support the Bay of Pigs invasion.

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.

In New Orleans, Mr. Murgado met Oswald. Hitherto unreported is that Bobby Kennedy became aware of Oswald —  before the assassination. 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.

“If the FBI is controlling Oswald,” Bobby reasoned, according to Murgado, “he’s no problem.” Operating covertly, Bobby underestimated who Oswald was and ceased to make him a major target of his concern. Bobby knew “something was cooking in New Orleans,” Murgado says. But Bobby urged “caution.” He did not share what he knew with those charged with protecting the President.

Angelo Murgado and a fellow Cuban traveled with Oswald from New Orleans to Dallas where they visited Sylvia Odio. Their ostensible objective was to obtain help for their anti-Castro efforts. Murgado trusted his companion, referred to in the Warren Report as “Leopoldo,” because not only was he a fellow veteran of the Bay of Pigs, but his brother was running for mayor of Miami. He was respectable.

Out of Murgado’s hearing, the next day “Leopoldo” phoned Mrs. Odio and told her how “Leon” Oswald had talked about murdering President Kennedy. “Leon” is “kind of nuts,” Leopoldo said.

Placing Oswald in the company of an associate of Bobby Kennedy, in an incident that suggests foreknowledge of the assassination, created a trap that would silence Bobby forever. Meanwhile Murgado had been betrayed by a man he thought he could trust, a man, it appears, who was involved in arranging for Oswald to be blamed for the assassination. The men who visited Mrs. Odio with Oswald are identified here for the first time.

“Leopoldo” was Bernardo de Torres, who testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which accepted the CIA demand that he be granted partial immunity, so that he was not questioned about the period of time leading up to the assassination.

     

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess the part of the story I doubt most is that this so-called trap would silence Bobby. How did he even know it was Murgado in Dallas with Oswald? Since Bobby never read the Warren Report, what reason do we have to believe he even knew about the Odio incident? Does Murgado say he told Bobby about this? If so, then why didn't Bobby go after de Torres? After all this is the big murderous brat Bobby Kennedy, who was supposedly foaming at the mouth to kill Castro simply because the BOP embarrassed his brother...

The other part that smells is that Murgado would go to the Odio's apartment seeking assistance. Nonsense. They told the Odio sisters they were friends of her father's and members of JURE. That was a lie. That's called disinfo. Going to someone's house and telling them lies and then insinuating that a man affiliated with her father's political group wants to kill Kennedy is not seeking assistance. While Murgado was supposedly betrayed by Leopoldo, I see NO reason to believe him.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The other part that smells is that Murgado would go to the Odio's apartment seeking assistance. Nonsense. They told the Odio sisters they were friends of her father's and members of JURE. That was a lie. That's called disinfo. Going to someone's house and telling them lies and then insinuating that a man affiliated with her father's political group wants to kill Kennedy is not seeking assistance.

I couldn't have said it better, whatever is coming out needs to be analyzed objectively and critically and not swallowed hook, line and sinker. Just ask the HSCA's chief researcher Gaeton Fonzi.

"According to Colby's notes she (Clair Booth Luce) admitted...she had concocted the name (Julio Fernandez).... I only knew one thing for sure: An awful amount of time had been spent checking out Luce's story and, in the end, it led nowhere....."

Sometimes with intelligence and counter-intelligence operations as we all know, when information is revealed "it is a mixture of truth with a lie." While I believe that there is a lot of significant information contained in Mellen's book and her bona fides are impeccable, I wouldn't accept every bit of info. in it without a grain of salt. Corroboration is the best way to go. But I basically can accept the premise that Angel and Leopoldo were Murgado and De Torres.

[Gerry Hemming]

Mr. Hemming,

Excuse me for being an amatuer in this investigation.  But I believe I caught on quite some time ago that the lobbing of nukes was a real possibility had the investigation of the JFK assassination actually revealed the truth.

And when ACTUAL national security issues are involved, I agree that the public has no "divine" right to the truth.  But after witnessing all the bullsh*t that has been swept under the rug in the holy name of "national security" over the past 42 years [i'm only 50, so I couldn't possibly have witnessed much more than that and actually understood any of it], I wonder just how much of what we're told is "for our own good" rather than having any remote connection with the truth.

While I don't think anything you might reveal would put your life in danger anymore [just a guess...'cause I figure anyone who actually cares, that was involved, is probably dead, in a vegetative state, or sitting on a beach thousands of miles away sipping drinks with umbrellas in 'em, knowing that by now there are so many crackpot theories out there that another one implicating THEM would be like another grain of sand on the beach], I can understand the potential economic implications of your telling of the entire story.

I know it's been said that history is just the winners' version of what happened, but I would hope that you could eventually tell your story and set the record straight, as you know it, for the sake of history as well. 

While you've revealed a lot of tantalizing bits and pieces, I just don't have the inside information necessary to crack all your cryptic comments [but some read more clearly after they've had a few days to sink in and mesh with other known elements].  Rather than antagonize you, I'd rather see you keep posting your comments and tidbits...because, eventually, I might just learn enough to end up asking the right questions myself.  Just hope neither of us runs out of time before that happens.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

---------------------

Mark:

You sound to me like a very "savvy" Hoosier, and no excusing is necessary since we ALL are amateurs, even when we are sometimes paid good money for our endeavors. [As member Dolva brought to our attention, "language" can be a very "puzzlin' melange", i.e.: "savvy" comes from the Spanish "Saber" = "To Know", and "comprende" comes along as to comprehend, or "do you understand?"]

Oftentimes what might appear "cryptic" is actually shorthand readily understood by the many "advanced/super members"; and were I to add definitions or addendums, they would most likely be offended/insulted considering the massive amount of work that they have put into this subject matter.

Contrary to one member's insinuations, I have NEVER feared harm or physical retribution against my person, as I have for many years possesed a Class-3 Federal Firearms License; and therewith I had lawful permission to carry submachineguns [silenced/suppressed] upon my person and in my vehicles and aircraft. That, coupled with executive protection security work [and lowclass "rent-a-cop" uniformed tours] abated any apprehensions that would-be attackers would escape unscathed. I have taken great pleasure over recent years that I no longer am burdened with the responsibility of going armed.

That same member [a peace officer] would most likely tell you that the uppermost burden on someone who "carries" is that dreaded scenario of sitting in a restaurant with family -- when armed felons initiate a robbery. What do you do when they confront you at the table, demand your wallet, and upon opening same, find your badge or just your CCW licence ??!! Do you take the bullet, or risk a shootout, surrounded by family and other innocent people ??!!

Throughout the late 1960s and into the early 1980s, carrying the "legend or reputation" of being one of the JFK hit team actually blazed a path of comraderie during my travels, especially when rubbing elbows with various and assorted "death squads".

Sadly, I experienced the burden of feeling responsible for the demise of a few of the persons named on that long list of "mysterious post-JFK deaths". The Dallas reporter, who interviewed Hall and I during January 1963, was killed by a "karate-chop" to the neck. The reporter sent by Weisberg or Garrison to California contacted Hargraves instead of me, and his focus shifted to the activities of the L.E.I.U. [Law Enforement Intelligence Unit]; and after speaking with Lt. Hendricks of the Long Beach Police Department; he was killed by the "accidental discharge" of a cop's service pistol in the police station locker room. [Lt. Hendricks was at the time the President of the nationwide LEIU]

You struck a cord with the "national security" reference. Immediately after giving testimony to the Church Committee [May 1975]; I filed under the FOIA/Privacy Act, and months later, just as heavily redacted copies started arriving in the mail [some pages were completely blacked out]; I was indicted by a federal grand jury. The few unredacted pages were documents related to my work with the drug interdiction task force, and it was obvious that these documents were being released for consumption by, inter alia, the Colombian drug cartels.

Shortly thereafter, some friendly news media folks called me, and expressing great alarm, stated that the media had received hundreds of "unredacted" documents. After changing my skivvies, I asked them to forward these copies to me posthaste, so that I might formulate a salvageable response during my travels in the near term. What the "suits" who sought revenge failed to grasp was: The cartel folks valued agents and cops highly, as they believed that ALL cops are on the "pad", and usually quite handy to them. Soon I learned that Colombia and Ecuador had received copies even before I had. They "own" a large number of highly placed [and assorted low-lifes] within most governments, including both state and federal.

Only in novels and the movies do you witness the scenario of the "insider" who has "tell-all" documents safely stashed somewhere, and those being a life insurance policy, nobody dares risk that person's untimely demise. More than once over the years [and recently with a family member] I have had to caution people about raising such an issue. Why? Because the enemies of those who might be "exposed" might just do the job in the hope that exposure does indeed occur !!

As for "geriatric limiting factors", some of my associates [now in their 60s and 70s] have been called out of retirement, and are with DHS, or over in Iraq/Afghanistan plying their skills. Moreover, whether elderly or young, terminations are always "outsourced".

One of my favorite movie scenes is where Max Von Sydow and Robert Redford are exiting the recently deceased DDP's home [last 10 minutes of "3 Days of the Condor"], and Max "the contract assassin" counsels Redford's character: "....It will happen like this...it wil be a nice day..." -- well, let me tell you how it happens since 1980.

The "Marielito" Cuban, a veteran of bayonetting and other brutalities suffered inside Fidel's gulags, and who works full time as a bodyguard/collector for the Cartel folks; is given a small down-payment and some expense money. [All of the necessary photos, addresses, bios, etc. are garnered via a simple credit check. etc.]

The target is just putting his key in the parked car door, the ethnic minority [of the crack-head pursuasion] grabs from behind. The shooter aims for "center mass" [solar plexis, so the lungs are frozen -- thus no screams]; and once down, two "taps" to the head. The "silent" weapon ? A 5 or 6 shot lightweight/featherweight 2-inch revolver with hammer shroud (so as not to foul while firing). Ordinarily revolvers are difficult to "suppress", but in this case it is inside a ziplock back [up to the wrist], and attached to the muzzle is an ordinary plastic squeeze bottle [softer the better, but some prefer plastic peroxide bottles].

The plastic expands upon each discharge, and is usually good for 7 to 8 shots,

totally silent. The ethnic minority is disposed of down the road a ways. The homicide dicks right it off as a robbery "gone bad".

The shooter makes a handsome profit selling the dope he has transported into the locale. Everybodys happy !!

Just to spite Kazakh Weberman [my extended family members who practice the Jewish Faith chuckled at the allegations of "anti-semitism" in my missives] I'll make it a point not to "run-outta-time !!"

More later,

GPH

_______________________________

[James Richards]

James:

We have done quite a bit of private e-mail correspondence over many months, but

in this case I will correct once again a false assumption which is not your fault, but one which can be laid at the doorstep of "THE AUTHORITIES" who have good reason for obfuscation.

"Rudolfo Fasco" does not exist. This real person of interest is Rudolph "Rudy" FUSCO, who ran a store in the 1800 block of West Flagler Street, Miami. He was the cousin of Hyman "The Jeep King" Berg of Chicago, and was related by marriage to Yonatan Rubenstein, a/k/a "Jack Ruby. The sign on the front of Fusco's store read "Fishin' Fusco", and he approached us after the Bay of Pigs attempting to make yet another surplus U.S. military equipment & vehicles sale, just as he had scammed "Mineral Carriers, Ldt." on Stock Island, Key West (Their unofficial Logo was: "Minerals? We Carry Hot Lead & Cold Steel"). [This occured while Bob Reynolds' predecessor at JM/WAVE was attempting to insert his then miniscule "boy scout troupe" into the JM/ATE [bOP] Task Force.]

Zenith Technical was originally situated at the former NAF (LTA) Richmond [blimp Base] PRIMARILY due to the fact that the acreage hosted the US Coast Guard "antenna farm" -- which would serve as cover for their original "PRIMARY" F.B.I.S. [Foreign Broadcast Intercept Bureau] tasking, which was intended to be a "monitoring only" facility ONLY, despite individual fantasies that it would serve as a transmit/receive/covert communications entity serving the "anti-Castro underground". Since simple "DFing [Direction Finder] techniques used by Cuba would have compromised Op/Sec, Mr. Prinz of Gibraltar Steamship, was given the "green light" to imitate the WWII style ["Verlain Letters" in the book & movie] broadcasting "in-the-blind" !! Thus arose Bill Turner's comical assessment [and book title] "The Fish is Red".

[This completely ignored Frank Wisner, Sr.'s bald and deadly compromising of both Comm/Sec & Op/Sec during his O.P.C. Ops; especially those with the N.T.S. entities in the Ukraine, and the "Partisans" in Albania [doing the early 1950s !!]

"Fishin' Fusco put us on the telephone with Hyman Berg [during early 1962] once again, and without getting into a similar call to Ruby that same week, the only item we ever received from "Rudy" was a WWII 1/2 ton "Weapons Carrier".

However, when just driving out to the Everglades in said vehicle raised our profile drastically [suddenly appearing that we weren't "rag-tag" waffle-eaters at Nellies' anymore, we returned same to the store.]

Ruby had involved the whole Chicago crowd in the 1959 attempt to sell surplus junk to Fidel's nascent Rebel Army & Air Force; along with Dominic Bartone of the Cleveland mob ["The Mayfield Road Gang"].

The above referenced photo centers on Fusco's minor contribution [1963] to the "Pirate Radio Transmitter Boat", which was mostly financed by Freddie Duran's wealthy mother.

NOTE: I would assure all, that NONE of the foregoing and above-mentioned had anything whatsoever to do with Dealey Plaza. Not that I would want to admonish the loud-mouth "Canuck" who joined this Forum last January, and along with his "music biz" has "studied?" the JFK matter for "40 years ??". Just what was around in 1965 for you to study "Mr. DJ" -- mayhaps Epstein's inconclusive "Inquest"; or maybe Lane's "law review article" which he styled as "Rush to Judgment" ?? I suspect that you shant admit "studying" the 26 volumes of cover-up, perjury, forgery, and blatant lies.

Not that I disagree with the motives for said cover-up, which RFK obligingly encouraged during 1964. Why, because then, as today, the threat of nuclear holocaust hung in the air like "Damocles' Sword". The greatest fear of the Washington elite was that Congress would [in accordance with the Constitution]

issue "Letters of Marque" instead of a "War Declaration", because Congress knew well that such a joint resolution would NOT be prosecuted by the Executive Branch, which retained fears of a launch of the 5/10 kiloton (fission) warhead tipped FROG "Cruise Missiles" retained at the Soviet naval base, Banes [Oriente Province/north coast], Cuba until late 1966.

[FROG was the NATO designation, and translated as "Free-Ranging-Over-Ground"]

Also, the publisher I signed a contract with during the mid-1990s was threatened with both the "Espionage" and "The Itelligence Identities Act", and quickly chickenxxxxted out. So much for the "contract signing cocktail party" we had celebrated prior thereto.

Methinks I will add just another ridiculous "closing motto" which has been adopted by some members. Mine is from circa 1953 "Mad Comics". Moreover, the one used erroneously and quoting E. Howard Hunt, needs to be clarified. Firstly, I never like Hunt in the old days, and even less today -- and principally because he defied Joannides in putting the "30th of November" group back on the JM/WAVE payroll, which was conditioned upon their severing ties with our instructor cadre, and pull their trainees back to "couch-potato" and suck up " Dept. of Ag. refugee rations". And Hunt coupled this with threats to take their entire families off of the relief roles should they not cease and desist.

However, the reality of "Eduardo's" many rants as to "one's right-to-the-truth"

[and avoiding comparisons with Jack Nicholson's USMC Colonel in the "A Few Good Men" ant-War movie] -- whether at Weberman's or Spotlight's depositions,

NO PRIVATE CITIZEN HAS A "RIGHT" TO THE "TRUTH" !! And this is especially so when the "leading" question's response might be inculpatory, and violative of 5th Amendment protections.

Amazing, Now I am hearing that I had a duty to "report" something to "The Authorities ??!!"; coupled now with a duty to "report" everything to some completely unknown scribbler on this Forum !! I don't need either family members or prospective publishing houses to once again nag the hell out of me for giving away the goods for free, and thus abrogating their financial interests !!

As for Nellie Hamilton's: that was set up by Sturgis prior to BOP, and we used that boarding house for exactly two weeks. When Sturgis failed to pay the rent, and told her to seek same from me, we were "Outta-there". Some, with jobs or family stipends, stayed on -- but after CIA Jounalist cover Dom Bonafede [Miami Herald] did "Hank" Chavez's bidding [JM/WAVE] to "burn" us, we rented several safehouses in the Negro district where "lilly-white" FBI agents and local cops couldn't do any unobserved surveillance of same.

As for Tony Summers [and Robyn Swan], I have done interviews with both. Unfortunately, a-la-Weberman, they can't get their stories straight, or refashion same to suit their's, or their editor's agendas and demands.

As for my buddy Bill Turner, The only thing he got correct in "10 Second Jailbreak" [later styled in the movie with Chas. Bronson as "Breakout"] was the fact that our "Canuck" Bill Dempsey did in fact return $40,000 to Joel Kaplan's sister. Surprise, Surprise !! [Gomering] It was Howard Davis who was approached by the "Folk Singer", and he set up the entire prison helicopter snatch in Mexico.

I recruited "Chopper Pilot??" Vic Stadter at Bartlett Field [Ontario, California] via my kindergarten pal, Art Dodd, who was then a Rotory-wing CFI ["FAA Certified Helicopter Instructor"]. However, and due to the Federal 5 year statute of limitations [and the "ongoing criminal enterprise/conspiracy statute sans limitations]; not too many of those involved in "derring-do" are stupid enough to expose themselves to government retribution just to satisfy a scribbler or a scrivener !!

Somebody had better check that brown neck stain, it definetly is NOT "ring-around-the-collar" !!

Cheers mate,

GPH (Gerry Hemming)

Thanks for the information, Gerry. Trying to lock down who was who after 40 odd years has proved frustrating over the years and I do appreciate the time you have taken with me, especially in private communication.

The DRE and Joannides are of obvious interest to me and someone like Isidro Borja especially. Given his involvement with Harber and company, it is a new direction to explore.

Cheers,

James

[Mark Knight]

I always heard that, if you don't care about pretty, a common 20-oz. soda bottle will silence a .22, and at close enough range I'm sure it could be mighty effective...as one story says, it sure was in RFK's case. [And if Oswald had only used a Baggie, the paraffin test would've come out differently in the Tippitt Case...and the dog WOULD've caught the rabbit, IF...]

I'm beginning to understand that the why of the assassination and the why of the coverup are two separate--but, obviously, related--issues. And I've come to understand that the technical stuff and the political are important, but even together they come closer to drawing a portrait by Picasso than a Van Gogh. And I've come to understand a lot about how you and your comrades-in-arms operated in the early '60's. So keep on posting, because I'm beginning to understand more of it all the time. Sometimes, what's "cryptic' today is clear as a bell tomorrow, after I've had time to sleep on it [amazing what the subconscious mind can do, ain't it?].

I believe I know to which member of "les gendarmes" you refer, and I hope someday you two can do the Rodney King thing--"Can't we all just get along?"-- and someday end up toasting marshmallows around the campfire while singing "Kum-Bah-Yah"...but I ain't holdin' my breath on that ever taking place. [Humor intended here...I won't make you guess.]

I kinda look at this case the way I look at understanding biblical prophesy...if you're looking for all the answers in one place, you probably won't find 'em. But if you can combine the bits and pieces from here and there, and determine what applies and what doesn't, and what fits the jigsaw puzzle and what doesn't, someday we'll figure this thing out and finally know the truth. SOUNDS simple enough, but after 40+ years nobody seems to have made all the pieces fit yet. But maybe we're just not listening well enough...I dunno.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

A few comments in reply to Gerry's most recent post.  My favourite leatherneck seems to have a thin skin.

NOTE:  I would assure all, that NONE of the foregoing and above-mentioned had anything whatsoever to do with Dealey Plaza.  Not that I would want to admonish the loud-mouth "Canuck" who joined this Forum last January, and along with his "music biz" has "studied?" the JFK matter for "40 years ??".  Just what was around in 1965 for you to study "Mr. DJ" -- mayhaps Epstein's inconclusive "Inquest"; or maybe Lane's "law review article" which he styled as "Rush to Judgment" ??  I suspect that you shant admit "studying" the 26 volumes of cover-up, perjury, forgery, and blatant lies.

Since I am presumably the "loud-mouth" in question, allow me to provide you an answer, Gerry.  Living in Canada, we had somewhat different reading material than did our southern cousins.  Yes, the wire service stories that ran down there also ran up here.  But, despite having a relatively conservative journalistic nature, Canadian newspapers were far more likely to run items questioning the validity of the WC's conclusions.  Many of them contained thought-provoking refutations of the Commission's fundamental assertions;  about the crime and how it transpired, about the marksmanship, and about Oswald's background.  Unlike there, these were not treated as 'national security' issues.

Moreover, you've apparently elected to forget that the first significant tome critiquing the Commission was published before the WC's Report.

This was Thomas Buchanan's "Who Killed Kennedy?"  Far from definitive or comprehensive, it was nonetheless a stirring piece of work from a man who paid close attention to the WC's workings, and deduced much from its omissions and failings.  My edition, which I still have, is a UK printing from 1964.

Similarly, you've blocked out from your memory banks the work of Joachim Joesten, whose "Assassin or Fallguy?" was also published in 1964.  Again, not an authoritative or comprehensive work, but worthwhile reading, still.  Though Joesten was German, my edition is a US print from '64.

Aside from Epstein and Lane, whom you cited, I also had the great good fortune to read Sylvia Meagher's "Accessories After The Fact," which I cannot praise highly enough.  It is still the most devastating demolition of the WC's conclusions and my well-worn, dogged-eared copy is a first edition printing from 1967.

Contrary to your assertion, I did read every last error, omission, fantasy, fabrication and outright lie contained in the 16 volumes, though I didn't get around to that in the '60s.     

Also, the publisher I signed a contract with during the mid-1990s was threatened with both the "Espionage" and "The Itelligence Identities Act", and quickly chickenxxxxted out.  So much for the "contract signing cocktail party" we had celebrated prior thereto.

Perhaps securing a publisher outside the USA would resolve that problem.  Your profile is high enough, your purported first-hand knowledge presumably convincing, your CV provocative... try going a bit farther afield.  Publishers outside the USA aren't bound by your laws, though your book would no doubt have trouble being imported into the US.

Amazing, Now I am hearing that I had a duty to "report" something to "The Authorities ??!!"; coupled now with a duty to "report" everything to some completely unknown scribbler on this Forum !! I don't need either family members or prospective publishing houses to once again nag the hell out of me for giving away the goods for free, and thus abrogating their financial interests !!

This misreads my posts entirely, Gerry.  While it is true that all citizens have a moral obligation to report what they know about a crime to the proper authorities, I've never said or implied that you have a duty to "report everything to some completely unknown scribbler on this Forum !!"  On the contrary, I've urged you to sell it to the highest bidder, if that's what pleases you, as it puts your story into the historical record.  Failing that, use a third party to float what you know to the appropriate authorities.

Assuming, of course, that you have a tale worth telling.

_______________________________________

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Dick Russell]

According to a telephone conversation with Gerald Patrick Hemming today, the men who visited Mrs. Odio were:

(1)  Angelo Murgado, who had been close to the Kennedys for a number of years.

(2)  Leopoldo was Bernardo de Torres.  de Torres was being controlled by Charles Siragusa, who, Hemming says, was involved in foreign assassinations.  de Torres had been given the assignment to watch Oswald.

(3)  LHO.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I doubt very much that Angel Murgado is the man who used the war name "Angel." As for de Torres, he might have known something but I sure don't think he was "Leopoldo."

[Tim Gratz]

Mr. Russell, delighted to hear from you.

I assume you know that in June of 2005 Professor Joan Mellen interviewed Angel Murgado and he confirmed he visited Silvia Odio in late September. He told her, however, that Oswald was at Odio's when he got there--but he knew who Oswald was.

Cannot see any reason why Murgado would lie about his involvement in the incident.

Edited September 25, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Mr. Russell, delighted to hear from you.

I assume you know that in June of 2005 Professor Joan Mellen interviewed Angel Murgado and he confirmed he visited Silvia Odio in late September.  He told her, however, that Oswald was at Odio's when he got there--but he knew who Oswald was.

Then his tale is at odds with Ms. Odio's, on that most fundamental point.  The fact that a man waits forty-plus years to come forward with information doesn't bolster his veracity, nor make his tale true.  You might be giddy with excitement over this "new development," but perhaps this is premature jubilation on your part. 

Ensuring that Ms. Mellen's book contains a few factual inaccuracies - thereby giving cause to attack or discredit all the rest [i.e. Oliver Stone's JFK] - is something more seasoned hands would anticipate.  But then, that would lead to questions about who made the introduction between the late-arriving xxxx and the author of the forthcoming blockbuster-that-needs-neutralizing, and for what purpose this red herring was dragged across the path.

Cannot see any reason why Murgado would lie about his involvement in the incident.

Your babe-in-the-woods act is as tiresome as it is disingenuous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited September 25, 2005 by Robert Charles-Dunne

[Gerry Hemming]

Mr. Russell, delighted to hear from you.

I assume you know that in June of 2005 Professor Joan Mellen interviewed Angel Murgado and he confirmed he visited Silvia Odio in late September.  He told her, however, that Oswald was at Odio's when he got there--but he knew who Oswald was.

Cannot see any reason why Murgado would lie about his involvement in the incident.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

-----------------

What did I say about either buying a goddamn tape-recorder or learn shorthand !! Or do you feel constrained by your upcoming "review" of Joan's book ?? Angelo NEVER came forth, and it was an associate who called me; advising that I make a quick call to Miami after I had "outed" his name on the forum, and it was picked up by a web search.

It took me two days in Miami just to get him to even consider speaking with Joan, and has since stated to Dave Talbot, that he will make no further statements on ANY subject whatsoever.

Dick, I am surprised that you would fall into the same BS trap as this Canuck DJ.; i.e., citing to the "cover-up" WC documents on Sylvia ?? Sylvia was furious upon reading this faggot Hoover's crap many years later. Not only did she deny EVER stating that one of the "visitors" was Mexican "looking/sounding", she centered upon the singular factual items contained therein: The references to J.U.R.E., and Rogelio Cisneros, war name "Eugenio". [Cisneros had been Fidel's #2 underground fighter, under his president of the CTC Electrical Workers Union -- Amaury Fraginals, who remained loyal to Fidel even after Rogelio's defection.]

She was later intimidated with threats of prosecution under Title 18 US Code Section 1001, to wit: "Making false statements to a federal agent."

[Martha Stewart can expertly discourse on section 1001. This is a post Civil War/Reconstruction statute which quickly ended certain citizen's false claims, in seeking reparations from the government (US Marshals). Said law obviated the previous requirement of a "sworn" statement. Then and now, a false UNSWORN statement to a federal officer carries a heavier penalty than does perjury !!]

Most laypersons can't grasp that there is a second paragraph to the perjury statute, which is incorporated in the stare decisis of section 1001. That is:

"...Any person making a false declaration under oath is guilty of perjury."

"...Perjury is defined as making two or more statements which contradict; both statements may be false, or both statements may be TRUE; the fact that they contradict is Perjury."

Sylvia, Marina, et al. weren't the only ones burdened with this statutory threat, and worse; there is no statute of limitations if you TODAY, once again, are tricked into re-affirming, modifying, or changing previous statements.

I will not go further until Joan's book is firmly lodged in the libraries; and this despite rumors of her having made disparaging remarks about me !! As she said, if you want "insider scoop"; pony up the trip expenses for June 2005.

Hoover's gay-blades deliberately inserted the "Mexican" bit so as to inculpate Larry Howard. From what I hear, Joan claims that Larry was also in Dealey Plaza; man that place is getting crowded.

'Nuff said,

GPH

__________________________

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

What did I say about either buying a goddamn tape-recorder or learn shorthand !!  Or do you feel constrained by your upcoming "review" of Joan's book ??  Angelo NEVER came forth, and it was an associate who called me;  advising that I make a quick call to Miami after I had "outed" his name on the forum, and it was picked up by a web search.

Would that "outing" have been before or after you took Gus Russo to meet him some years ago?  Seems you're most anxious to sell this story to somebody... and finally found a buyer in Ms. Mellen.

It took me two days in Miami just to get him to even consider speaking with Joan,

After he'd already spoken with Russo....?  Say, he is one reluctant witness, isn't he?

and has since stated to Dave Talbot, that he will make no further statements on ANY subject whatsoever.

Well, that removes any final doubts about his credibility then, doesn't it?

Dick, I am surprised that you would fall into the same BS trap as this Canuck DJ.; i.e., citing to the "cover-up" WC documents on Sylvia ??  Sylvia was furious upon reading this faggot Hoover's crap many years later.

These two sentences are rife with peculiarities. 

First, feel free to disparage me as much as you like, Gerry.  Referring to me as a "DJ" [i've been on radio, but have never earned a living as a disc jockey] presumably is intended to demean my credentials for making my comments here.  Instead, it just illustrates what thin skin my favourite leatherneck has.  When one cannot rebut the message, one attacks the messenger, which is Gerry's stock in trade here.  And everywhere else.

Second, Gerry's reply entirely mischaracterizes my comments [hardly for the first time], since I've not alluded to any FBI docs re: Ms. Odio.  According to your shill Tim Gratz, when Angel[o] arrived at Ms. Odio's doorstep, "Oswald" was already there.  One assumes that "Oswald" and "Leopoldo" must have been loitering there, awaiting the arrival of Angel[o] prior to knocking on the door, for Ms. Odio's own WC testimony illustrates that all three were present when she first arrived at the door.  Nary a mention of the Bureau's own mischaracterization in my post.

Nor in Dick Russell's post.  At the risk of seeming like a kiss-ass, I will admit that Dick's "TMWKTM" is among the very best books ever written on the assassination, and is clearly the result of years worth of painstaking research.  It also benefits from the [mostly grudging] recollections of Richard Nagell, whose own peripheral contact with Oswald is demonstrable, unlike the claims made here and elsewhere by my favourite leatherneck.  With the benefit of Nagell's "hints," I suspect that Dick is far better placed to ID the two odd characters who appeared with "Leon Oswald" at the Odio welcome mat than anyone else, save for those who were actually there.

As for falling into a BS trap, this is precisely what I hope to prevent by asking Gerry Hemming to provide proof for any and all assertions that he makes.  The evidentiary bar should be held no lower for him than anyone else, nor does he somehow enjoy a "special status" despite having received 'groupie' treatment for the past several decades, based upon assertions never verified.  Rather than instructing others on what they should do, Hemming might spend a bit more time trying to give others reason to give a rat's ass what he has to say.  We've had decades of hints, allusions to top secret stuff, provocative comments, etc., but nothing of any actual value.    

  Not only did she deny EVER stating that one of the "visitors" was Mexican "looking/sounding",

Nor have *I* ever speculated on this, here or elsewhere.  My comments are based on her own testimony, not what was conjured up by the Bureau.  In her testimony, she makes it clear she thought both her non-Anglo visitors were lower-caste Cubans, not Mexican.  In her testimony, her only comment on this was a passing one, in response to a direct question from Liebeler: 

"Well, this is my opinion. They looked very much like Mexicans. But I might be wrong at that, because I don't remember any Mexican accent. But the color of Mexicans, when I am referring to greasy, that kind of complexion, that is what I mean."

she centered upon the singular factual items contained therein: The references to J.U.R.E., and Rogelio Cisneros, war name "Eugenio". [Cisneros had been Fidel's #2 underground fighter, under his president of the CTC Electrical Workers Union -- Amaury Fraginals, who remained loyal to Fidel even after Rogelio's defection.]

According to one version of events - expunged from the WC Report at Rankin's insistence - Ms. Odio ID'd one of her visitors to another party as Rogelio Cisneros.  If that were the case, Ms. Odio's inability/refusal to ID him for the WC would no doubt have been due to his prominence in her very own JURE.  Making that ID would have been tantamount to admitting her own group kept company with the assassin prior to the Dealey Plaza tragedy, which I've previously argued was precisely the intent of the provocation involving Odio and her visitors.  Apparently, Weberman reached a similar conclusion, and even attributed it directly to my favourite leatherneck:

"OSWALD and two Cuban or Mexican members of INTERPEN were dispatched to Sylvia Odio's apartment by HEMMING to discredit or "dirty-up," Manuel "Manolo" Ray Rivero's group, JURE."

While Gerry eschews taking such credit, he provided Weberman with some interesting quotes:

"I dealt with Manolo Ray. We could link up this dude with somebody that's already in the files...... I know one of the guys who took OSWALD to Sylvia Odio. This was a setup to dirty-up OSWALD with suspected Castro agent Sylvia Odio. They'd build a file on her. Either they are building this guy's credibility to go kill Castro, or they've abandoned that, and said, 'xxxx that, we have to make this guy look like a Castro agent and have him do something serious in this country that's provocative.'"

[Nodule 15]

She was later intimidated with threats of prosecution under Title 18 US Code Section 1001, to wit: "Making false statements to a federal agent."

[Martha Stewart can expertly discourse on section 1001.  This is a post Civil War/Reconstruction statute which quickly ended certain citizen's false claims, in seeking reparations from the government (US Marshals).  Said law obviated the previous requirement of a "sworn" statement.  Then and now, a false UNSWORN statement to a federal officer carries a heavier penalty than does perjury !!]

Most laypersons can't grasp that there is a second paragraph to the perjury statute, which is incorporated in the stare decisis of section 1001.  That is:

"...Any person making a false declaration under oath is guilty of perjury."

"...Perjury is defined as making two or more statements which contradict; both statements may be false, or both statements may be TRUE; the fact that they contradict is Perjury."

Sylvia, Marina, et al. weren't the only ones burdened with this statutory threat, and worse; there is no statute of limitations if you TODAY, once again, are tricked into re-affirming, modifying, or changing previous statements.

I will not go further until Joan's book is firmly lodged in the libraries;

[i.e. You will not point out her errors and/or omissions until after it's too late to revise, amend, edit or correct them.  What a helpful chap, indeed!  When Dick Russell's demurral above proves correct, one wonders if anyone will remember that it was Hemming who led Ms. Mellen down that primrose path, just as he has done with Russo before her.]

and this despite rumors of her having made disparaging remarks about me !!  As she said, if you want "insider scoop"; pony up the trip expenses for June 2005.

Now why would anyone make "disparaging remarks" about a polite, well-mannered and affable chap like you, Gerry?

Hoover's gay-blades deliberately inserted the "Mexican" bit so as to inculpate Larry Howard.  From what I hear, Joan claims that Larry was also in Dealey Plaza; man that place is getting crowded.

The "Mexican" bit seemed to stem from Ms. Odio's attempt to describe her visitors' complexion, not their place of birth.  Likewise, her testimony included the admission that they didn't seem to have a discernable Mexican accent, or anything else that suggested they were Mexican:  "But the color of Mexicans, when I am referring to greasy, that kind of complexion, that is what I mean."

'Nuff said,

GPH

__________________________

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Mark Knight]

Gerry Hemming wrote:

What did I say about either buying a goddamn tape-recorder or learn shorthand !! Or do you feel constrained by your upcoming "review" of Joan's book ?? Angelo NEVER came forth, and it was an associate who called me; advising that I make a quick call to Miami after I had "outed" his name on the forum, and it was picked up by a web search.

Tim, it sounds like you're pissing him off. Now, maybe in law school you learned that accuracy didn't matter, as long as you sold your argument; but when I was in journalism school, accuracy mattered. As Operation Mockingbird shows, maybe it didn't matter to some journalists, but apparently there was some sort of code of ethics among professors of journalism, if not among the practitioners.

And right next to accuracy was the philosophy of not pissing off your sources, if for no other reason than to be able to return to them if necessary. One certainly doesn't piss in their Wheaties, and then ask them, "How's breakfast?"

[Tim Gratz]

What I consider interesting from Gerry's post is that the revelation of who Odio's visitors were was a direct result of his participation in this Forum. Apparently he made a comment about one of the people involved in the activities in the sixties and that person then, for reasons not made perfectly clear, revealed who Angel was.

And it was Gerry who persuaded Angelo to talk to Professor Mellen.

Can anyone come up with a theory why Angel Murgado (Kennedy) would lie about such a thing? I cannot.

[John Simkin]

Sadly, I experienced the burden of feeling responsible for the demise of a few of the persons named on that long list of "mysterious post-JFK deaths". The Dallas reporter, who interviewed Hall and I during January 1963, was killed by a "karate-chop" to the neck. The reporter sent by Weisberg or Garrison to California contacted Hargraves instead of me, and his focus shifted to the activities of the L.E.I.U. [Law Enforement Intelligence Unit]; and after speaking with Lt. Hendricks of the Long Beach Police Department; he was killed by the "accidental discharge" of a cop's service pistol in the police station locker room. [Lt. Hendricks was at the time the President of the nationwide LEIU]

I assume you are talking about the deaths of Bill Hunter and Jim Koethe. On 24th November, 1963, Bill Hunter of the Long Beach Press Telegram and Jim Koethe of the Dallas Times Herald interviewed George Senator. Also there was the attorney Tom Howard. Earlier that day Senator and Howard had both visited Jack Ruby in jail. That evening Senator arranged for Koethe, Hunter and Howard to search Ruby's apartment.

It is not known what the journalists found but on 23rd April 1964, Hunter was shot dead by Creighton Wiggins, a policeman in the pressroom of a Long Beach police station. Wiggins initially claimed that his gun fired when he dropped it and tried to pick it up. In court this was discovered that this was impossible and it was decided that Hunter had been murdered. Wiggins finally admitted he was playing a game of quick draw with his fellow officer. The other officer, Errol F. Greenleaf, testified he had his back turned when the shooting took place. In January 1965, both were convicted and sentenced to three years probation.

Jim Koethe decided to write a book about the assassination of Kennedy. However, he died on 21st September, 1964. It seems that a man broke into his Dallas apartment and killed him by a karate chop to the throat. Tom Howard died of a heart-attack, aged 48, in March, 1965.

How does Loran Hall fit into this? Did you have any contact with George Senator.

By the way, have you considered having your memoirs published in the UK? Maybe I could help you with this.

[John Simkin]

What I consider interesting from Gerry's post is that the revelation of who Odio's visitors were was a direct result of his participation in this Forum. Apparently he made a comment about one of the people involved in the activities in the sixties and that person then, for reasons not made perfectly clear, revealed who Angel was.

And it was Gerry who persuaded Angelo to talk to Professor Mellen.

Can anyone come up with a theory why Angel Murgado (Kennedy) would lie about such a thing? I cannot.

Here is one possible explanation for Murgado’s actions. It was discovered that Joan Mellen was about to publish a book on Jim Garrison that was going to point towards the people responsible for the assassination of JFK. The strategy was therefore to feed Joan with a new story that if it was included would take the headlines. Soon after the book is published, Murgado will come forward and admit he was lying. Joan Mellen will be discredited and the rest of the book will not be taken seriously.

Anyway, Murgado deserves his own thread. Please post any information you have on Murgado here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5136