Robert Howard Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 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 John, that Joan was possibly "fed a bogus story" because she was on track to revealing the truth, is in my mind something that would be the most nightmarish scenario for those who are still seeking the truth after all these years. Just think of the media treatment "Joan Mellen's book discredited the day it hit's the shelves" I, myself and, I suspect many others would be willing to overlook a mistake in judgement if the book is as credible as I believe it will be; but the mainstream media, (as you seem to imply) would not, I suspect be quite so forgiving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted October 9, 2005 Author Share Posted October 9, 2005 (edited) Forgive my ignorance, John, but if Murgado states that he lied to Mellen, how in the world does that discredit Mellen? Was she supposed to require him to undergo a polygraph before she recited his story (which is not incredible on its face)? Your scenario, in my opinion, makes no logical sense for the reason stated above. Edited October 9, 2005 by Tim Gratz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Forgive my ignorance, John, but if Murgado states that he lied to Mellen, how in the world does that discredit Mellen? Was she supposed to require him to undergo a polygraph before she recited his story (which is not incredible on its face)?Your scenario, in my opinion, makes no logical sense for the reason stated above. An important part of Operation Mockingbird/Nightingale is to portray conspiracy theorist as both gullible and sloppy researchers. It is argued that these people are not “proper” historians who have a political agenda (something that you have been quick to say about researchers you disagree with). It is therefore important that researchers treat witnesses like Angelo Murgado and Gerry Hemming with great caution. Don Bohning recently attacked Bill Turner for relying too much on the testimony of people like Gerry. This was unfair as Bill has always made it clear that he has found Gerry as a unreliable witness. In fact, I would argue that three of the best recent books on the JFK assassination: Someone Would Have Talked (Larry Hancock), Breach of Trust (Gerald D. McKnight) and Rearview Mirror (Bill Turner) have not fallen into this trap and have to relied on unreliable testimony. Going by the article that appeared in the Key West Citizen, Joan Mellen will assume the testimony of Murgado is true. If that is the case, she will be roundly attacked by the critics for the reasons that Robert Charles-Dunne and Pat Speer have clearly pointed out in this thread. She will be attacked for not being a “real” historian (an historian would not accept Murgado’s testimony as evidence). This will distract from other points she might include in her book as her credibility will be severely damaged. I went too far when I said that Murgado might admit he lied to Joan Mellen. In fact, he does not need to do that in order to damage her credibility. Although, his apparent decision to refuse to answer questions on the subject will also add to the suspicion that he has been lying. You have asked what might Murgado’s motivation be to lie about his involvement in this case. Maybe someone who has good reason to undermine the credibility of JFK researchers is paying him to do it? Maybe he just wants to be written about in the national press. You only have to look at modern television to see that a large percentage of the population want their five minutes of fame. To my mind Murgado is just another Judyth Baker and James Files. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted October 9, 2005 Author Share Posted October 9, 2005 (edited) John, why should Professor Mellen have rejected Murgado's statements? 1) Do you have any evidence Murgado has given false evidence before? 2) Do you have any evidence his demeanor indicated untruthfulness? 3) Do you have any reason to assert that Murgado's reputation in the community is less than exemplary? 4) Do you contend his story (not used in a pejorative sense) that he was the Angel who visited Odio is on its face incredible? 5) Are there any logical reasons why his story should have been rejected? 6) Do you agree that from the photo of Murgado taken apparently in the early nineties he could fit the description Odio gave of the Angel or Angelo who visited her? Are you willing to risk your reputation on your assumption that after Professor Mellen's book is published Murgado is going to come forward and claim he lied about it? And even if he should do so, how could Professor Mellen be tarred as a "sloppy researcher" for writing about what he told her (at least absent any proof of the factors cited above)? This is why your scenario is nonsensical; I see no reason why Professor Mellen should have rejected his story out-of-hand. If he claims he lied to her that reflects only on his credibilty and not on her abilities as a serious researcher. The number by which the reasons to believe Murgado visited Odio exceed the number of reasons to believe Buckley was a conspirator are approximately equal to the number of sand particles on all of the beaches in Florida. Edited October 9, 2005 by Tim Gratz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Matt Allison Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 While I think it's beyond wise to look for the angle in all this, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Murgado is lying. My personal gut feeling is that he is not - when it comes to talking about the fact he was the "Angel" at Odio's door. Admitting more than that puts him into potential serious legal jeopardy regarding the death of a U.S. President, so I don't blame him for trying to say things like "Oz was there already. We didn't drive him to Texas." Or whatever the story is. I'd be more skeptical of Murgado if he was more of a sketchy personality. But he isn't. He's a real Cuban freedom-fighter, and remember, the guy changed his name to Kennedy for a reason. Hemming is an interesting dude. I think the fact that he is completely not trusted as a source by anyone has allowed him to talk about "Benny" and not get his head blown off. It's quite obvious that he knows he was close to what happened, yet was in the dark. He can release little nuggets of truth he's discovered, while blowing BS up everyone's ass so as to appear flaky. He can't become too credible, because the moment he does, he's just signed his own death warrant. But he's been researching this thing forever just like everyone else here. I think Hemming is as American as a person can get: Commie fighter, and into solving the murder of a Chief Executive that was killed because he was supposedly secretly Communist. How conflicting, huh? But those are the acts of faith that are only worn by true patriotic types. cheers, Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted October 9, 2005 Author Share Posted October 9, 2005 (edited) Matt, I think you have a very perceptive perspective of Mr. Hemming. Certainly one should not accept everything he says as "Gospel" (sorry for the religious reference, atheist friends). Much of what he reports is not from his first hand knowledge and so is only as credible as is its source. I assume when Mr. Hemming reports something he has reason to believe what his source is telling him. I find Gerry to be: 1) extremely intelligent; 2) extremely gracious and pleasant; and 3) with a remarkable memory for events that occured decades ago. And he certainly is patriotic. John wrote: To my mind Murgado is just another Judyth Baker and James Files. Murgado never claimed to be Oswald's lover; nor is he a convicted murderer like Files. Seriously, I see no reason why Murgado would want to muddy his own reputation by admitting that he had associated with Lee Harvey Oswald. Files is a different case since his reputation can hardly get any worse. Edited October 9, 2005 by Tim Gratz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 I think so but I think I recall there was some controversy about his testimony. I assume it is easily researched. ------------------------------ Tim: I will repeat what I stated on the telephone yesterday, "...we are OFF THE RECORD as to what is being discussed !!" Responding to the clown who questions my "scooping" Joan Mellen, and why didn't I "come forward" some 40 years ago ?? Sounds just like Kazahk Weberman, and; I am beginning to suspect that this is Weberman using an alias. Go to his "Nodules" and read my response to his query about not "coming forth"; and I repeat: You don't want to know where on your anatomy I will do my "coming" !! Since I am the "clown" in question, let me assure Mr. Hemming that I am not Weberman, don't look anything like Weberman, have never pored over Bob Dylan's trash, have never insisted that the three tramps were.... you get the picture. I also note that in this non-responsive reply, there is no rationale offered for not having identified either L nor A in decades gone by, only the vague implication that it might have led to harm befalling Hemming had he done so. It's most interesting that a man who insists he was in the thick of various battles on so many different occasions, whose entire profile is built upon so much purported derring-do, was too frigthened by possible consequences to make known to the authorities what might have been helpful in resolving various JFK related mysteries. Given the wide variety of contacts Gerry had back in the day, and presumably still does, one wonders why he did not use a cutout or intermediary as a third party to float what he knew to authorities. Given the great fear of personal harm that prevented Hemming from making the ID in past years, it is presumably highly dangerous knowledge. Then how and why did Gerry decide after all these years that now is the time to reveal the truth? Did the danger suddenly evaporate? Has some key person died, and hence there is no longer any great fear of reprisal? It is a good general rule of thumb that when late-arriving witnesses make a grandiose claim, they be viewed with suspicion unless and until some type of confirmation for that claim can be established. This has been true of Judyth Baker, Ricky White, James Files, et al, and should be no less true in this instance. I took Joan Mellen to meet Angelo on June 27th this year; just as I took Russo to interview him years ago. Joan paid the expenses down to Miami, but my son and I got stuck with the costs returning north. Nevertheless, as Joan complained in an e-mail last month; If any "so-and-so" wants the inside story; then they can pony up their share of the travel and other expenses. Interesting. Presumably whatever Russo encountered in the course of his interview disinclined him to pursue this avenue. Perhaps Russo wasn't convinced that this story was genuine, or perhaps it didn't fit into Russo's own pre-conceptions. Now it gets very clear why certain professionals avoid forums !! Why should anybody expose themselves to having their "chains pulled" by complete amateurs ?? As opposed to what? Having our cranks yanked by pros? Rather than complain with condescension, express high dudgeon about the peons who plague you, or dribble the story out piecemeal as it suits you, Gerry, you might find it far more helpful for your own credibility to merely tell the story. Don't rely upon others; find yourself a secure soapbox and write your book [half the members here would buy it, sight unseen, as you know] or sell your life story for big bucks to Oliver Stone or serialize it via any receptive periodical. Few people are better situated to strike such a deal, and then your tale would be on the record. Surely, this is far more efficient and satisfactory than taking others by the hand to meet your secret sources and contacts, and then hoping against hope that they get the story right, no? Joan Mellen has yet to completely resolve specific issues' specifically those which she intends to elaborate upon in more detail within her prospective tome. When she finally asks the correct questions, she will get the facts "Maam". There are others out their attempting to accomplish similar interviews, but I can assure you that they will fail. Rather than wait for Dr. Mellen to formulate the "correct questions," why don't you just supply them to her? If it's merely a question of connecting the dots, as you suggest, why do you seem so unconcerned about whether anyone will ever do it? Or is there some kind of price tag involved? I worked with Sylvia in Cuba. Long after both the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee coverups, she stated, after her review of those documents purporting to be her "testimony" -- she bitterly denounced EVERYTHING contained therein as having been FALSIFIED. Mrs. Connell was a longtime FBI informant, and one whom had been tasked to monitor; among others, the Odio sisters. I knew her husband, who divorced her after she snitched him out to the FBI. The last time we spoke was when he was running a "veterans" bar on West Flagler Street and 26th avenue in Miami [during 1965]. He had a lot to say about the "Odio Incident", primarily because he wanted to discover enough of the facts to "burn" his ex-wife !! Mea culpa for not having called any of the current or past members of this forum some 40 years ago, or are you bitching because I didn't "drop-a-Dime" to Hoover, or one of LBJ's cohorts. Well kiddies, I kept my Kennedy Family intermediary up-to-date on most everything, especially after dealing with Garrison in N.O. during the Summer of 1967. My contact with Bobby ?? His name is Charles Bartlett, and he is still alive and well in Georgetown. He was the person who introduced "Jackie" to JFK at a dinner party at his home. But don't expect that newspaperman to even answer the telephone -- girls !! Gerry, your prior three grafs are precisely why your story seems so questionable. Clearly, you had personal contact with the key players in the Odio incident, and know things worth sharing with the authorities. You also know men of Bartlett's calibre, which makes you well placed to share that information with the authorities, without implicating yourself or placing yourself in danger. My questions remain: why didn't you do so when it might have counted? And, what has changed so dramatically that it is no longer dangerous to do so now? As we age, and grow less robust, we face our own mortality. I understand that you've not been enjoying the best of health, so you know precisely what I mean by this. Are you content to leave behind a fractured and indecipherable chronology of events, when you know you are singularly and uniquely situated to fill in the missing pieces and provide historical accuracy as your legacy? RFK spent large sums of money in his efforts in ultimately clarifying specific facts, and thereby resolved that his initial contemporaneous beliefs and suspicions were in total error. RFK "DID NOT" begin his inquiries until late 1965 !! "Benny" de Torres was nowhere near Dealey Plaza. Moreover, the first instance of his being associated with the "investigation" of the JFK matter was via an Edward J. Epstein article in New Yorker Magazine, and wherein it was hinted that "Benny" has expended approximately 50% of Garrison's "Truth-or-Consequences" funds while "checking-out" the Miami Cubans !! James: the person in the Seymour, Harber, "Benny" photo is none other than CIA Officer Joannides' principal D.R.E. contact -- Isidro "Chilo" Borjas. I have no doubt that when more facts are exposed on this "Odio Incident", and hopefully by Joan Mellen ?? -- there will be the usual rants by the self-styled "critics" on this forum even then. John, I suspect you have some "damage control" artists amongst the membership !! Who are they "assisting" ?? I seriously doubt that they even know for certain. It is called "false-flag" recruitment -- Girls !! The only reason that confusion, "rants" and "damage control" and "false flag" nonsense exist is because those tasked with resolving these issues, haven't; those in a position to supply the missing vital pieces, haven't. Instead, we've had endless committees of inquiry that have resolved nothing; and a number of persons who claim to have key knowledge will claim to have knowledge, but refuse to share it. The irritant is not those who ask questions that they cannot themselves answer; it is those who claim to have the answers but won't provide them. If you would like to shut we "girls" up once and for all, Gerry, just do the righteous thing and place your knowledge into the history books where it belongs. That would be a fitting legacy for you to leave behind: Gerry Patrick Hemming, patriot in war and peace, who as one of his last acts did the right thing. John Martino met ALL of his Cuban contacts through me ONLY. As for his purported "confession" to John Cummings [then of NewsDay] -- Bullxxxx. I took over John's Central American import/export business, at his request, after his second committment to the cardiac unit at Cedars in Miami Beach. During the late 1960s, and into the mid 1970s, John ran his business from the Biltmore Hotel in Guatemala City -- where I joined him from time-to-time. Since Martino was in Cuba as early as 1956, which predates your own arrival on that scene significantly, there can be little doubt that Martino knew some interesting Cubans well prior to needing any introduction from you. That he "met ALL of his Cuban contacts through you ONLY" is a blanket assertion, but unsubstantiated by any evidence other than your own insistence. Ditto for your condemnation of the Cummings report, which dovetails entirely with what he also told Claasen/Klaasen. It is also odd that you would denounce as "Bullxxxx" what Cummings eventually begrudgingly divulged, for it might actually bolster suspect elements of your own story re: Oswald's attempts to infiltrate Interpen: The last time he met reporter Cummings, John Martino made an astonishing claim. "It came out of the blue," Cummings recalled. "John told me he had himself met Oswald several weeks before the assassination, in Miami. He said an FBI agent named Connors asked him to come to a boat docked in Biscayne Bay, and introduced him to Oswald by name. The impression John got was that Oswald didn't know his ass from his elbow, didn't know what he was involved in. He thought the agent wanted him to meet Oswald because John was involved in anti-Communist activity, and Oswald was someone this agent was running." I was not able to trace a Miami agent called Connors answering the description provided by Cummings. FBI files show Martino did have contacts after the assassination with an agent named James J. O'Connor, whom I tracked down in retirement. "John Martino?" he said. "I'm afraid all I could tell you is, yes, the name rings a bell.... I don't recall that he was a regular contact." O'Connor said he cannot recall whether he was in touch with Martino before the assassination. He said he never met Oswald at any time. Cummings, an investigative reporter for more than thirty years, did not think the Martino allegation was just a crook's slur against a law enforcement officer. "I believed Martino," he said. "It came across, just before he died, like a confessional. I was told that Connors, the agent he named, was in Counterlntelligence." Several pages that refer to Martino have been withdrawn from the Kennedy assassination collection at the National Archives, at the insistence of the CIA and the FBI. Anthony Summers, The Kennedy Conspiracy (1980) Due to compartmentalization, neither Angelo nor "Benny" ever had the full scope of exactly what they had been tasked to do, and moreover, had less knowledge of each other's moves doing that, and later operations. "Benny" still is a pro-shooter, or facilitator, even today. However, nobody in their right mind would suspect that he was part of the "plot" -- especially the "so-called" plot "formulated/discovered/uncovered" by the majority of wing-nutters I've encountered in my recent travels. As more than a few of the members have stated in their private e-mails to me: "....What a bunch of stupid assholes....they should get-a-life !!" Since I've never mentioned Benny in any of my posts, I'll assume that I'm exempted from this gratuitous slur from those who send you private comments, but lack the guts to post them here where they might actually be challenged. I'm sure all you "girls" swap much gossip. As a side-bar: I had to repeatedly twist John Cumming's arm in order that he might show even the slightest interest in the JFK matter. Bill Turner was of the same disinclination, and they, along with many others, wouldn't make ANY inquiries until they were fed inside scoop on other stories of "greater" interest. Even today, Don Bohning could give a rat's ass as to the JFK crap being spewed forth, and this is no doubt a result of his experiencing the less than adequate bona fides "brandished" by the "wing-nutter" groupings & "groupies". Cummings maintained that Martino divulged what he knew to Cummings only after having sworn him to keep it confidential. You know, the same way you have instructed Tim Gratz that ""...we are OFF THE RECORD as to what is being discussed !!" If so, perhaps Cummings was the journalist referred to by ARRB member Daniel Alcorn in his own ARRB testimony: When I saw these records this year, I did some further investigation, found a journalist who was very intimate with Mr. Martino back in 1963. In fact, he had been invited to go on this raid in 1963, and he had kept in touch with Mr. Martino over a period of time, and this journalist confirmed to me that, in fact, before Mr. Martino's death he did describe such a plot to this journalist, but he had withheld the information in order to protect the family, and he had an obligation up until now to do that. Since both Messrs. Turner and Bohning are members here, perhaps they could address your claims regarding their own alleged recalcitrance. I made no reference to the JFK matter to anybody of consequence until dealing with Garrison during 1967. During 1968, Harold Weizberg came to El Monte, California for a week of interviews, and it was through him that the Paul Coates TV Show producer demanded an interview. During that same short timespan, Bob Dornan & Maria Cole were prompted by Art Bell [all of Channel 9 TV, Los Angeles]to make inquiries, but we diverted them to some insider scoop on the Panthers, Ron Karenga's "US" organization, and the Brown Berets -- ALL of which entities had been created by MH/CHAOS Operators. So, despite shrewing on and on about reporters and journalists not expressing any interest in the JFK matter despite your apparent pleading - per your comments above re: Cummings, Turner and Bohning - when journalists and officials did express an interest in learning what you knew of the matter, you instead led them off on some other wild goose chase. This is, of course, precisely what I suspect you practice here and elsewhere at every opportunity. It is very accommodating of you to admit that you have a history of doing this. I will be speaking with Joan today, and if she asks the specific questions, then her book might eventually contain some more enlightenment for those of a serious nature. But it is not about to happen on this forum, that is: before she gets her chance to assemble the facts a bit more coherently !! Then one wonders why you pre-emptively provide information to Tim Gratz, who seizes the opportunity to do precisely what you claim you don't want done, "before she gets her chance to assemble the facts a bit more coherently." On the one hand, you refuse to open your mouth. On the other hand, you just can't keep it shut. Just how deep is the game you're playing, Gerry? GPH __________________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Murgado now claims he was Angelo, Bernardo de Torres was Leopoldo and Leon was Oswald. Joan Mellen adds: "Angelo had been betrayed by a companion he believed he could trust, a man not so much dedicated to the overthrow of Fidel Castro, as Angelo believed, as involved in arranging for Oswald to be blamed for the murder of the President, what the Odio visit was really about."The key question concerns why Murgado has waited so long before coming forward with this story. I suppose it could be argued that he did not because he was scared of Bernardo de Torres. However, Torres is still alive and other witnesses have suggested that he is the key reason why they have not told the full story. Robert Charles-Dunne has suggested that Murgado’s story may be an attempt to discredit Joan Mellen’s book. I find this argument convincing, especially as Tim Gratz has been so keen to push the credibility of Murgado’s evidence. The three best sources on the Silvia Odio story are Gaeton Fonzi, The Last Investigation (pages 108-116 and 250-259), Dick Russell, The Man Who Knew Too Much (308-311) and Tony Summers, The Kennedy Conspiracy (296-301 and 446-447). All three of these authors interviewed her and came to the conclusion she was telling the truth. G. Robert Blakey also points out that the House Select Committee on Assassinations also came to the conclusion that she was telling the truth (The Plot to Kill the President, pages 162-165). I agree that Silvia Odio is telling the truth. This is why: (1) Her story is corroborated by her sister, Annie Odio, who was in the apartment when they had the visit from Leopoldo, Angel and Leon Oswald. (2) The day after the visit Silvia received a phone call from Leopoldo. He told her that Leon was a former Marine and that he was an expert marksman. He added that Leon had said “we Cubans, we did not have the guts because we should have assassinated Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs”. (3) Silvia told the story of Leopoldo, Angel and Leon to her father Amador in a letter a few days after the meeting took place. The letter did not survive but his reply has. In it Amador confirms that she has good reason to be worried by these three men who are not known to him. (4) Silvia told her story to her psychiatrist, Dr. Burton Einspruch before the assassination took place. (5) It is also believed Silvia told her story to Father McChann, a Catholic priest in Dallas. Ssee William Kelly’s post on this here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5347 (6) Silvia and Annie both identified Lee Harvey Oswald as Leon when his photograph appeared on the television following the assassination of JFK. However, they did not go to the police with this information. Silvia’s sister, Sarita, told her friend Lucille Connell about these events. She in turn told a friend who passed this information onto the FBI. In her article for the Key West Citizen (2nd September, 2005) Joan Mellen claims that she is the first person in print to name Bernardo De Torres as Leopoldo. However, as long-term members will know, he was named on this Forum sometime ago. This information also appears on my webpage on Torres. Maybe that is why it was removed from the Goggle database for so long (it is now 1st out of 1,430,000 pages). http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKtorres.htm Of course, I also name Edwin Collins and not Angel Murgado as Angelo. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcollinsE.htm My page on Silvia Odio is also ranked first out of 269,000 pages. I have placed a photograph of Bernardo De Torres and Edwin Collins taken in 1963. If she surfs the net she will no doubt come across this page and picture. Maybe she could contacts me and identify Leopoldo and Angel as Torres and Collins. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKodioS.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 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. First off, one must recognize that there are several different "puzzles" mixed into the same box. After separation of the puzzles, then one may stand a chance of placing each piece into it's proper place. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Hemming Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Murgado now claims he was Angelo, Bernardo de Torres was Leopoldo and Leon was Oswald. Joan Mellen adds: "Angelo had been betrayed by a companion he believed he could trust, a man not so much dedicated to the overthrow of Fidel Castro, as Angelo believed, as involved in arranging for Oswald to be blamed for the murder of the President, what the Odio visit was really about." The key question concerns why Murgado has waited so long before coming forward with this story. I suppose it could be argued that he did not because he was scared of Bernardo de Torres. However, Torres is still alive and other witnesses have suggested that he is the key reason why they have not told the full story. Robert Charles-Dunne has suggested that Murgado’s story may be an attempt to discredit Joan Mellen’s book. I find this argument convincing, especially as Tim Gratz has been so keen to push the credibility of Murgado’s evidence. The three best sources on the Silvia Odio story are Gaeton Fonzi, The Last Investigation (pages 108-116 and 250-259), Dick Russell, The Man Who Knew Too Much (308-311) and Tony Summers, The Kennedy Conspiracy (296-301 and 446-447). All three of these authors interviewed her and came to the conclusion she was telling the truth. G. Robert Blakey also points out that the House Select Committee on Assassinations also came to the conclusion that she was telling the truth (The Plot to Kill the President, pages 162-165). I agree that Silvia Odio is telling the truth. This is why: (1) Her story is corroborated by her sister, Annie Odio, who was in the apartment when they had the visit from Leopoldo, Angel and Leon Oswald. (2) The day after the visit Silvia received a phone call from Leopoldo. He told her that Leon was a former Marine and that he was an expert marksman. He added that Leon had said “we Cubans, we did not have the guts because we should have assassinated Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs”. (3) Silvia told the story of Leopoldo, Angel and Leon to her father Amador in a letter a few days after the meeting took place. The letter did not survive but his reply has. In it Amador confirms that she has good reason to be worried by these three men who are not known to him. (4) Silvia told her story to her psychiatrist, Dr. Burton Einspruch before the assassination took place. (5) It is also believed Silvia told her story to Father McChann, a Catholic priest in Dallas. Ssee William Kelly’s post on this here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5347 (6) Silvia and Annie both identified Lee Harvey Oswald as Leon when his photograph appeared on the television following the assassination of JFK. However, they did not go to the police with this information. Silvia’s sister, Sarita, told her friend Lucille Connell about these events. She in turn told a friend who passed this information onto the FBI. In her article for the Key West Citizen (2nd September, 2005) Joan Mellen claims that she is the first person in print to name Bernardo De Torres as Leopoldo. However, as long-term members will know, he was named on this Forum sometime ago. This information also appears on my webpage on Torres. Maybe that is why it was removed from the Goggle database for so long (it is now 1st out of 1,430,000 pages). http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKtorres.htm Of course, I also name Edwin Collins and not Angel Murgado as Angelo. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcollinsE.htm My page on Silvia Odio is also ranked first out of 269,000 pages. I have placed a photograph of Bernardo De Torres and Edwin Collins taken in 1963. If she surfs the net she will no doubt come across this page and picture. Maybe she could contacts me and identify Leopoldo and Angel as Torres and Collins. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKodioS.htm ---------------------------- John: Let me get the script straight. I ( or WE) are puppets on a string attmepting to protect Beranrdo de Torres, despite having implicated him in the murders of Letelier, Torriente, et al. ??!! Now that Bill Seymour is back on the hook, and solely based on dubious amateur attempts at "imagery" [or stegano-imagery] we now revert to Weberman's 1970s limp attempt at matching the tramps with the [by then] "newly infamous Watergate bunglers" !! This was soon followed by a herd of sheep which raised up Harrelson, Holt, Alfred E. Neumann, Elvis, Judge Crater, et al. as solid candidates. [however, they left out the "Duke, Duke, of Earl" - a/k/a Jacko d' Ripper, you know, the General from Dr. Strangelove ??!!] O.K.: now let me see, WE are supposed to slink off into the darkness, having failed to "burn" RFK, LHO. J.U.R.E., Garrison, and assorted others -- using the nefarious device of this "alleged" Murgado's, bold and almost daily exhortations at Hyde park over the last 40+ years !! Or are WE being BAITED a-la Weberman into angry responses, and thereby feeding either the frenzy of "bookies" -- who have a constitutional right to know "EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYBODY" ??!!; or; are is it the exact opposite, to wit: some folks [or entities] want to shut us up -- so as to continue with these years of wasted efforts and inane prattling ??!! And should we challenge Mellen's "Girlish-Garrison-Groupie" love-diary, then we have most surely have "set-her-up-for-a-fall"!! And this even despite the fact she hates RFK for "NOT joining with Garrison in his "investigation??" the JFK murder ??!! And "other authors" who WERE about to use Murgado's INTEL -- these must not be the ones who were repeatedly told to "bugger off, mate" in a polite manner no less. Oh, I forget, Russo came to grief because he also was led "down-the-primrose-path" by this "over-zealously vocal "Angelo" ??!! OOOOPS !! I forgot, this is the same Angel/Angelo who "FAILED" to "come-forth" to -- let me think now -- Sissy Hoover ?; NOT -- Garrison?; NOT -- WC, HSCA, PIKE, Church, Tower, Rockefeller, Kerry, the Swiftboatsmen, COPA, Lancer, SFRG, Star Chamber, and/or The Mormon Tabernacle Choir ??!! Lest we forget, you are now in telepathic communications with Sylvia, Annie, and Sarah ("Sarita"); and upon discerning some Internet "Nat'l Command Authority" [discreet message]; they all will rush to the nearest Western Union, telegraph, telephone, keyboard, or smoke & drums signal outfit -- and transmt: "reporting in for duty". Thereby providing justification as to their "testimony", "interviews by thwarted investigators, scribblers, scriveners, et al. !! Thus, we are assured that a totally compartmented young lady, along with her threatened with deportation to Venezuela family, will continue to support a WC instigated [specter, Belin, Dulles, et al.] "cover-story" !! AND/OR keep the Kennedy Klan from any further erosion of the "Camelot Myth" !! Amazing that NOT ONE author, investigator, scribbler speaks, reads, nor writes in the Spanish language to this day Oh, by the way [or BTW for the PC literates]: J.U.R.E., you know, Spanish for "JUNTA" (Coalition) had representatives from: Alpha-66, which was [and still is today] comprised of former anti-Batista - viz: "26th of July" Rebel Army veterans who espoused "Fidelismo-sin-Fidel", and included Socialists such as Menoyo, Nazario Sargent, Fleites, et al. !! BTW: Menoyo has moved his "Cambio Cubano" operation back to offices in Havana. D.R.E., another "Fidelismo-sin-Fidel" Socialist student group created by Rolando Cubela out of the F.E.U./ 13th of March organization. 30th of November, then headed by former Communist Carlos Rodriguez Quesada. M.I.R.R., headed by former Communist anti-Batista leader Orlando Bosch. The partially defunct AAA organization, headed by former Communist Aureliano Sanchez Arango. Among those excluded from J.U.R.E. were: Former Communist labor leader: Eusebio Mujal [and his own "JUNTA"], and who had thrived in Cuba under former Communist fellow traveler's Batista, Grau, Prio, Diaz Balart (Fidel married their sister Mirtia), et al. !! Former Communist gang leader and Batista Senator, Rolando Masferrer. (Fidel had been a member of his Nazi/Commie gang during the late 1940s, that is until he got shortchanged financially after the Cayo Confites "Expedition?? FIASCO" !! The belated decision by Krulak, Sterling Cottrell, Roger Hillsman, et al. to push for TOTAL support of the ENTIRE left-wing [and newly formed J.U.R.E.] was made after Miami groups raised a furor about a "leaked" list of fresh anti-Castro leadership personalities. The biggest problem was: Nobody inside or outside of Cuba had ever heard of the names before. Prouty sided with Lansdale, Hurwitch, Goodwin, Schlesinger, et al. against this move to the "Left" -- McCone, Rocca, Halpern, et al. sided against the Helms clique -- and advised RFK/JFK to heavily INCREASE the funding of J.U.R.E. !! Meanwhile, final arrangements were being made to create and guide "2nd Naval Guerrilla" [hosted by Somoza & "Pepe" Figueres]. Oh, by the way --WE opposed Artime's "heating-up-the-south-coast-of-Cuba strongly. But they went on to sink patrol boats [isle of Pines/Youth, batibanao, Cayo Largo]; blow railway lines & bridges, burn sugar mills and fuel storage facilities, etc.!! Twice they used jet fighter-bombers in attacks near Santa Cruz del Sur [but the world laughed, exiles with jets -- come on bearded one!!] (The jets were "borrowed" from the "Confederate Air Force" collection at Harlingen, Texas, after refurbishing at M.A.S.D.I.C., Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Tuscon, Arizona. The "after-action reports" -- put together by Cram, and later by Jack Pfeiffer; showed that during 1963 thru 1966, "2nd Naval G." did about 60% of the damage done by the French "Maquis"/F.F.I. during WWII !! Hardly a sham, or designed to fail operation. However, the more they did, the more we bitched to Goldwater, Thurmond, Fascell, Smathers, et al. !! Why, because it closed off infiltratration/exfiltration sites needed by Intel agents, especially those seeking to confirm or deny the continued presence of nukes on the island. Were these impediments by design ? By the White House [JFK/LBJ] ??!! Clue me in John, are WE to "fess-up" ?? "Make a clean titty of it" ?? Leave the herd of sheep to their fantasyland [and oftentimes financially rewarding] dreams of glory and truth ?? mayhaps go sniveling to Wim, so that he might commercialize some more phony "Tooshy/Files/Holt/Evis/Neverland" fables ?? I am so very sorry that the "pubic" taxpayers invested million$ into pre-scripted "fairy tales" about "faireys" and "Ferries" -- and that gullible innocents [some seeking 15 nano-seconds of fame] have purchased tons of "feeble-fables" which never have even come close to the actualities of events. In less than two weeks, the earnest crusaders for truth will once again gather together, sing "Kum-Bayah", and espouse even more outrageous extensions of the original WC cover-up. Of course, during recess, the "boss-crusaders" will once again set up their "flea-markets" -- and hawk their wares !! Remember, "...Backward..and to the left....Backward...and to the left...Backwar...!!" Jerry Seinfeld [the TV comedian] did a spoof of the "never-happened-during-the-Shaw-trial-Kostner-shtick"; and wherein Kramer Newman, et al. have been struck by a ball. He then lines them up and while poking them with a stick -- shows his "single-magic-ball-theory" wherein the missile changes flightpaths contrary to the laws of physics !! Shamefully, I howled so loud the neighbors came to my door. Truly now John, baiting is out of order, WE might elucidate more, or we might just stand back and sadly observe -- some guidance PLEASE !! Cheerio, GPH _______________________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Boylan Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Gerry, How much truth is in this article by Martino? Is he referring to 2nd Naval G? Is there anything to the claim that Castro was to be booted? Cuba and the Kennedy Assassination – by John Martino (Human Events. Jan, 1964) During the three years that I was incarcerated in Cuban prisons, former intimates told me of the Red dictator’s irrational hatred of President Kennedy. One Red publication, I remember, displayed a fake photograph showing the President and the First Lady careening drunk through the streets of Mexico City during their official visit in 1962. Another-the magazine Mella, featured a cartoon in which John F. Kennedy was depicted as a dope pusher injecting narcotics into the arm of a child. This almost insane hatred was not due to any belief that President Kennedy was strongly anti-communist. It was partly jealously [sic] on Castro’s part of the way that JFK’s personality had captured the imagination of the Cuban people. For almost six month’s, it has been assumed in Cuban circles in Miami and in Havana that the Kennedy Administration planned to eliminate Fidel Castro, his brother Raul; Che Guevara and various others through a putsch. Cuban exiles here understand that plans for this operation were cleared with a Soviet representative in Europe shortly after the missile crisis of last October (1962). The old-line communists inside the Castro regime were to take part in the operation together with Castro henchmen that were paid to switch sides. The plan involved a more or less token invasion from Central America to be synced with the coup. A left-wing coalition government was to be set up, including leaders of the Cuban Communist party. The most talked about candidate to head this “democratic” regime was Huber Matos, a former Castro commander, who is at the present the most privileged prisoner on the Isle of Pines. Matos enjoys a private room and a television set. He is allowed to strut around in his uniform as one of Castro’s commandants while decent and patriotic Cubans in the same prison suffer unspeakable tortures. The plan allegedly involved complete withdrawal of Soviet troops, release of all political prisoners, U.S. occupation of Cuba and a new government of the Tito or Ben Bella type. It was to be staged for February 1964. According to reports from usually reliable exile sources, Khrushchev had agreed to the plan because of the importance to the Soviet Union of re-electing the Democratic Administration. The plan provided that Castro and his fellow experts in murder and genocide were to be given safe conduct out of Cuba. From the Soviet standpoint, all that was involved was a slight tactical retreat in Cuba to be offset by advances on other Latin American fronts, such as Brazil and Chile. From Castro’s standpoint, however, it meant the end of his career as a world figure and refused to go along with it. Assassination of President Kennedy was a bold way of checkmating the plan. At a reception in the Brazilian Embassy in Havana in early September, Castro told newsmen that CIA agents had been sent to the island to kill him and Raul. If Kennedy was behind this, he added, the American President should realize that he was not the only politician that could engineer the assassinations of chiefs of state. This story was published in the Miami News on November 24. Meanwhile Emilio Nunez Portuondo, the distinguished former Cuban ambassador to the United Nations and one-time president of its Security Council, informed his friend and associate in Mexico, Dr. Jose Antonio Cabarga, of Castro’s threat. El Universal, one of Mexico’s leading newspapers, published the story as a front page exclusive. Immediately thereafter, the Mexican police arrested Cargaga for delivering the report to El Universal and beat him up so badly that he is now hospitalized. This is typical of the conduct of the Mexican police President Adolfo Lopez Mateos, whose pro-communist background and associations are myriad. For example, when Tito visited Mexico a few months ago, newspaper publishers were ordered to print only laudatory articles on the Yugoslav dictator. To prove to the world that Mexico has a free press, however, two or three critical articles were approved and ordered published. Immediately before the Tito visit, a few anti-communists students attempted to destroy posters praising the Balkan butcher. They were caught by the police, held incommunicado for a few days and subjected to tortures which leave no permanent scars. For example, one was hanged by the feet and repeatedly dropped on his head, but so lightly that his skull was not broken. The Cubans in the South Florida area have had dealings with Oswald in the past and they are not willing to join the press in dismissing him as a fanatic, a psychopath or a pathetic, maladjusted youth. When he was in Miami, Oswald attempted to join an organization of Americans engaged in training Cubans in guerrilla warfare, headed by Jerry Patrick. As a former Marine, Oswald would have been useful, but he failed to pass a security check and was turned down. Oswald made similar approaches to the Cuban Revolutionary Student Directorate (DRE) and to JURE, another organization of Cuban freedom fighters, but was rejected. Many Americans will never have used a psychologically unstable person of this sort and that they would have shunned Oswald because of his record of long and notorious Red associations. This is true as far as Soviet-oriented Reds are concerned. However, the Kremlin Communists were certainly innocent of complicity in the assassination for the simple reason that Khrushchev had no reason to desire Kennedy’s death. Fidel Castro probably had very few potential assassins in this country who were loyal to him rather than to Moscow. Those Reds who follow Castro tend t be more zealous and destructive elements in the movement, people consumed by hatred, not only of Western civilization, but of mankind in general. If Castro needed an assassin, he would have had to search among the Maoists, the Stalinists and the neo-Trotskyites-in another words, among people as disturbed, warped, hate-saturated and wicked as Oswald. The fact that the crime was committed in Dallas, a center of American conservative and nationalist movements, was probably not accidental. Had Oswald managed to escape to Cuba, the liberal press and the Establishment could have placed the entire blame for the murder of the President, not on America’s Communist enemies, but on those who love this country and wish to preserve its institutions and its heritage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Hemming Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Gerry,How much truth is in this article by Martino? Is he referring to 2nd Naval G? Is there anything to the claim that Castro was to be booted? Cuba and the Kennedy Assassination – by John Martino (Human Events. Jan, 1964) During the three years that I was incarcerated in Cuban prisons, former intimates told me of the Red dictator’s irrational hatred of President Kennedy. One Red publication, I remember, displayed a fake photograph showing the President and the First Lady careening drunk through the streets of Mexico City during their official visit in 1962. Another-the magazine Mella, featured a cartoon in which John F. Kennedy was depicted as a dope pusher injecting narcotics into the arm of a child. This almost insane hatred was not due to any belief that President Kennedy was strongly anti-communist. It was partly jealously [sic] on Castro’s part of the way that JFK’s personality had captured the imagination of the Cuban people. For almost six month’s, it has been assumed in Cuban circles in Miami and in Havana that the Kennedy Administration planned to eliminate Fidel Castro, his brother Raul; Che Guevara and various others through a putsch. Cuban exiles here understand that plans for this operation were cleared with a Soviet representative in Europe shortly after the missile crisis of last October (1962). The old-line communists inside the Castro regime were to take part in the operation together with Castro henchmen that were paid to switch sides. The plan involved a more or less token invasion from Central America to be synced with the coup. A left-wing coalition government was to be set up, including leaders of the Cuban Communist party. The most talked about candidate to head this “democratic” regime was Huber Matos, a former Castro commander, who is at the present the most privileged prisoner on the Isle of Pines. Matos enjoys a private room and a television set. He is allowed to strut around in his uniform as one of Castro’s commandants while decent and patriotic Cubans in the same prison suffer unspeakable tortures. The plan allegedly involved complete withdrawal of Soviet troops, release of all political prisoners, U.S. occupation of Cuba and a new government of the Tito or Ben Bella type. It was to be staged for February 1964. According to reports from usually reliable exile sources, Khrushchev had agreed to the plan because of the importance to the Soviet Union of re-electing the Democratic Administration. The plan provided that Castro and his fellow experts in murder and genocide were to be given safe conduct out of Cuba. From the Soviet standpoint, all that was involved was a slight tactical retreat in Cuba to be offset by advances on other Latin American fronts, such as Brazil and Chile. From Castro’s standpoint, however, it meant the end of his career as a world figure and refused to go along with it. Assassination of President Kennedy was a bold way of checkmating the plan. At a reception in the Brazilian Embassy in Havana in early September, Castro told newsmen that CIA agents had been sent to the island to kill him and Raul. If Kennedy was behind this, he added, the American President should realize that he was not the only politician that could engineer the assassinations of chiefs of state. This story was published in the Miami News on November 24. Meanwhile Emilio Nunez Portuondo, the distinguished former Cuban ambassador to the United Nations and one-time president of its Security Council, informed his friend and associate in Mexico, Dr. Jose Antonio Cabarga, of Castro’s threat. El Universal, one of Mexico’s leading newspapers, published the story as a front page exclusive. Immediately thereafter, the Mexican police arrested Cargaga for delivering the report to El Universal and beat him up so badly that he is now hospitalized. This is typical of the conduct of the Mexican police President Adolfo Lopez Mateos, whose pro-communist background and associations are myriad. For example, when Tito visited Mexico a few months ago, newspaper publishers were ordered to print only laudatory articles on the Yugoslav dictator. To prove to the world that Mexico has a free press, however, two or three critical articles were approved and ordered published. Immediately before the Tito visit, a few anti-communists students attempted to destroy posters praising the Balkan butcher. They were caught by the police, held incommunicado for a few days and subjected to tortures which leave no permanent scars. For example, one was hanged by the feet and repeatedly dropped on his head, but so lightly that his skull was not broken. The Cubans in the South Florida area have had dealings with Oswald in the past and they are not willing to join the press in dismissing him as a fanatic, a psychopath or a pathetic, maladjusted youth. When he was in Miami, Oswald attempted to join an organization of Americans engaged in training Cubans in guerrilla warfare, headed by Jerry Patrick. As a former Marine, Oswald would have been useful, but he failed to pass a security check and was turned down. Oswald made similar approaches to the Cuban Revolutionary Student Directorate (DRE) and to JURE, another organization of Cuban freedom fighters, but was rejected. Many Americans will never have used a psychologically unstable person of this sort and that they would have shunned Oswald because of his record of long and notorious Red associations. This is true as far as Soviet-oriented Reds are concerned. However, the Kremlin Communists were certainly innocent of complicity in the assassination for the simple reason that Khrushchev had no reason to desire Kennedy’s death. Fidel Castro probably had very few potential assassins in this country who were loyal to him rather than to Moscow. Those Reds who follow Castro tend t be more zealous and destructive elements in the movement, people consumed by hatred, not only of Western civilization, but of mankind in general. If Castro needed an assassin, he would have had to search among the Maoists, the Stalinists and the neo-Trotskyites-in another words, among people as disturbed, warped, hate-saturated and wicked as Oswald. The fact that the crime was committed in Dallas, a center of American conservative and nationalist movements, was probably not accidental. Had Oswald managed to escape to Cuba, the liberal press and the Establishment could have placed the entire blame for the murder of the President, not on America’s Communist enemies, but on those who love this country and wish to preserve its institutions and its heritage. ------------------------------ Dave: Even into the 1970s, Martino was considered to be, and acted like, a compartmented operator, and earned the sobriquet of being a "Mushroom". Tom Purvis probably thought that most members wouldn't be interested in Googling "Son Tay Raid". On a couple of the S. T. Raider's websites you can find copies of their unofficial shoulder patch. One of the first stitched out by Thai seamstresses depicts a mushroom coupled with the letters "K.I.T.D.A.F.O.H.S.", which translates as: "Kept In The Dark And Fed Only Horse xxxx". A later patch shortened the number of letters. To gain more independence from Trafficante, he opted to continue spewing the J.B.S. line about LHO and Fidel. This made Pawley even more financially generous, and caused Santo to feel that his cover as a D.G.I. agent would be more secure from suspicious eyes. The only intelligence agency that ever had assets inside the Kremlin was the Mossad. From time-to-time they loaned some of these assets [temporarily] to the MI-6 and CIA, in that order. Mossad grew more cautious, reluctant and bitter after the CIA blew Colonel Oleg Penkovskiy's cover !! However, upon receipt of solid Intel that the G.R.U. was about to do a coup against Fidel during 1964, and that it would be coupled with the deposing of Khruschov -- the nascent D.I.A. and its newly created S.O.D., convinced the JFK folks that it was time to launch the embryonic Special Affairs Teams. "2nd Naval Geurrilla" was just one of many of the LRRP [pronounced "Lurp"] entities organized and waiting in the wings for 1964. Krulak, as S.A.C.S.A. was among the top echelon planners of the 1964 "counter-coup" planned for Cuba. Others included the fathers of the SF ["Green Berets"]: Col. Wendel L. Fertig, who ran WWII guerrillas on Mindannao, Philippines [who sent Wm. Gale Potter packing in disgrace (via submarine) to MacArthur's HQ in Australia]; Col. Donald Blackburn, leader of "Blackburn's Headhunter's", WWII guerrilla leader, U.S. Guerrilla Forces, North Luzon; Gen. Robt. Frederick, WWII creator and leader of "The Devil's Brigade" -- the Joint U.S./Canada 1st Special Service Force; Col. Aaron Bank, for years considered to be the "Father" of the Green Berets; a still young "Sammy" Vaughn Wilson, who was Gen. Frank Merrill's "point-of-the-spear" recon platoon commander of "Merrill's Marauders", et al. !! Most of the top echelon folks of the 1964 PB/----- project removed themselves from "E-Ring" at the Pentagon, "Foggy Bottom", Langley, Arlington Hall, 8th & "Eye, etc. to a secure location near Nag's head; especially for briefings. Bill Pawley's old credentials with the P.F.I.A.B. ["President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board"] brought him into the loop, and caused him to soften his bitterness over the "Bayo" Op betrayal. Santo encouraged Martino to seek out people on the periphery of the 1964 scheme, but in most cases Martino failed, and Santo's bona fides with "Barba Roja" Pineiro deteriorated. Later, Santo was doubled and used to oust the Corsican cartel from the Khun Sah "Golden Triangle" facilities -- turning them over to the Italian Mafia, but under the strict control of O.D.E.S.S.A. !! Sidebar: Martino suggested that me and my partner meet with a businessman in Central America. However, while we were enroute, the President's half-brother called and warned that we were to be murdered shortly after arrival. Martino quickly called the gentleman, told him that I had lead the Dealey Plaza teams, and that should he persist, the retaliatory strikes against him and his family would be swift and brutal. Just minutes prior to our arrival, he had gotten off of the telephone with "El Presidente", who also warned him against any fortuitous actions. Some years later, this businessman's Washington lawyer contacted the HSCA and informed them that his client was prepared to testify under oath that I had explained [in great detail] the minutea of the DP operation. Jack Anderson later wrote a column complaining about the U.S. Government's abuse of this man. This gentleman's case officer in D.C. was the same Carl ..... who had busted the "Watergate Bunglers"; and was a Bobby Inman asset -- along with Bob Woodward, and the young Navy "Admiral's Yeoman" !! A while before he died, Martino somehow received insights and clarifications of how he had been "used-for-years"; ergo a "Mushroom" !! He, like Dom Bartone [at the same time] begged us to take over the "business" and exact revenge agaaints the "Perps' !! Big problem was: we hadn't the first clue as to who the "perps" were, despite communal thinking that we were somehow elevated to the top of the food chain. Later, GPH _______________ NOTE: Gen. Samuel Vaughn Wilson, later a CIA Soviet Specialist, served as a consultant on the Jeff Chandler movie version of Ogburn's book -- "Merrill's Marauders". He took a sabatical from CIA and went to the Philippines for the filming of the movie. he was played by Jeff Hunter, and true to history -- played as the quasi-adopted son of Gen. Merrill. His young blond son was given an extensive speaking role in the movie. There were only 12 hollywood actors on location, the Marauders were played by Green Berets from the 1st Special Forces Group, Okinawa. The very talented Filipino niseai & Issei played the Jap soldiers. A simultaneous premier of the movie was held at the Marauders "Regimental Surgeon's" residence "Nha Pumgah", Greenbelt , MD. -- but Chandler was unable to join his fellow actors there at Dr. Lew "Abe" Kolodny's home. Gen. S. V. Wilson retired after serving as the Director, Defense Intelligence Agency. He now runs a small College in Virginia. Members of the Marauders Association help fund Comandos L, "our" Bayo Operation, and others. Moreover, they asked us to carry their "color" into combat in Cuba. They have sinced asked us to wear their shoulder patch on our right sleeves [combat patch]. After years of lobbying, we finally convinced the Pentagon and Congress that the Army urgently needed a full Ranger Regiment. The Marauders Battle Flag [Colors] were passed to the 75th Infantry Regiment, and finally, at Fort Benning, GA [1974] the 1st Batallion was mobilized. After a compromise, the Regimental Crest was a copy of the Marauders Patch; while their shoulder patch is the "Scroll" from "Darby's Rangers". -30- ------------------------------ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Boylan Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Gerry, Fascinating stuff. I've often felt like a "mushroom" myself. (Ya get left in the dark and xxxx on.) On a side note, just a military history question, I wonder if you ever heard of a Cpt. E.A. Kearns (I think it was Edward). Kearns was mostly in Burma during WWII. I don't think he was with Merrill. After WWII, Kearns went on to head the MP/CID school at the Carlisle Barracks until the advent of the Korean War. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 The Odio Incident From the House Select Committee on Assassinations Hearings Vol. X, pp. 18-35 (62) In connection with the question of anti-Castro Cuban involvement in the Kennedy assassination, the committee examined one incident which, over the years, particularly intrigued critics of the Warren Commission's investigation. It became known as the "Odio incident" and involved a young Cuban exile, Silvia Odio. Here, in part, is how the Warren Commission detailed the incident and its conclusions in its final report: (63) The Commission investigated (Mrs. Odio's) statements in connection with its consideration of the testimony of several witnesses suggesting that Oswald may have been seen in the company of unidentified persons of Cuban or Mexican background. Mrs. Odio was born in Havana in 1937 and remained in Cuba until 1960;it appears that both of her parents are political prisoners of the Castro regime. Mrs. Odio is a member of the Cuban Revolutionary Junta (JURE) an anti-Castro organization. She testified that late in September 1963, three men came to her apartment in Dallas and asked her to help them prepare a letter soliciting funds for JURE activities. She claimed that the men, who exhibited personal familiarity with her imprisoned father, asked her if she were "working in the underground," and she replied that she was not. She testified that two of the men appeared to be Cubans, although they also had some characteristics that she associated with Mexicans. Those two men did not state their full names, but identified themselves only by their fictitious underground "war names." Mrs. Odio remembered the name of one of the Cubans as "Leopoldo." The third man, an American, allegedly was introduced to Mrs. Odio as "Leon Oswald," and she was told that he was very much interested in the Cuban cause. Mrs. Odio said that the men told her that they had just come from New Orleans and that they were then about to leave on a trip. Mrs. Odio testified that next day Leopoldo called her on the telephone and told her that it was his ideas to introduce the American into the underground "because he is great, he is kind of nuts." Leopoldo also said that the American had been in the Marine Corps and was an excellent shot, and that the American said the Cubans "don't have any guts * * * because President Kennedy should have been assassinated after the Bay of Pigs, and some Cubans should have done that, because he was the one that was holding the freedom of Cuba actually." (64) Although Mrs. Odio suggested doubts that the men were in fact members of JURE, she was certain that the American who was introduced to her as Leon Oswald was Lee Harvey Oswald. Her sister, who was in the apartment at the time of the visit by the three men, and who stated that that she saw them briefly in the hallway when answering the door, also believed that the American was Lee Harvey Oswald. By referring to the date on which she moved from her former apartment, October 1, 1963, Mrs. Odio fixed the date of the alleged visit on the Thursday or Friday immediately preceding that date, i.e., September 26 or 27. She was positive that the visit occurred prior to October 1. (65) During the course of its investigation, however, the Commission concluded that Oswald could not have been in Dallas on the evening of either September 26 or 27, 1963. It also developed considerable evidence that he was not in Dallas at any time between the Beginning of September and October 3, 1963. * * * (66) In spite of the fact that it appeared almost certain that Oswald could not have been in Dallas at the time Mrs. Odio thought he was, the Commission requested the FBI to conduct further investigation to determine the validity of Mrs. Odio's testimony. The Commission considered the problems raised by that testimony as important in view of the possibility it raised that Oswald may have had companions on his trip to Mexico. The Commission specifically requested the FBI to attempt to locate and identify the two men who Mrs. Odio stated were with the man she thought was Oswald. * * * (67) On September 16, 1964, the FBI located Loran Eugene Hall in Johnsandale, Calif. Hall has been identified as a participant in numerous anti-Castro activities. He told the FBI that in September of 1963 he was in Dallas, soliciting aid in connection with anti-Castro activities. He said he had visited Mrs. Odio. He was accompanied by Lawrence Howard, a Mexican-American from East Los Angeles and one William Seymour from Arizona. He stated that Seymour is similar in appearance to Lee Harvey Oswald; he speaks only a few words of Spanish, as Mrs. Odio had testified one of the men who visited her did. While the FBI had not yet completed its investigation into this matter at the time the report went to press, the Commission has concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was not at Mrs. Odio's apartment in September of 1963. (1) (68) The evidence did not support the definitive character of the Warren Commission's conclusions. The Commission had based its conclusion on two points: the "considerable" evidence that Oswald could not have been in Dallas on the evening Mrs. Odio alleged she saw him; (2) the FBI's report of Loran Eugene Hall's speculation that Odio misidentified his companion, William Seymour, as Lee Harvey Oswald. (3) Although the Warren Commission Report stated that Odio "fixed" the date of the alleged Oswald visit on September 26 or September 27, she actually told the FBI that she was not at all positive about the exact date, (4) and that it might have been as early as September 25. (5) (69) The Warren Commission asserted that Oswald left New Orleans by bus for Houston, on his way to Mexico, on September 25. (6) Yet there was no documentary evidence as substantiation, and neither the bus driver nor any passenger could recall seeing Oswald on that bus. (7) In fact, Warren Commission General Counsel J. Lee Rankin asked the FBI to investigate the possibility that Oswald left New Orleans on September 24, (8) when a neighbor saw him leaving his apartment carrying two suitcases. (9) Rankin pointed out in his letter to J. Edgar Hoover that: Marina Oswald told the Commission that her husband told her he intended to leave New Orleans the very next day following her departure on September 23, 1963. She has also indicated that he told her an unemployment check would be forwarded to Mrs. Ruth Paine's address in Irving from his post office box in New Orleans.* * * It also seems impossible to us that Oswald would have gone all the way back to the Winn-Dixie store at 4303 Magazine Street to cash the unemployment check which he supposedly picked up at the Lafayette Branch of the Post Office when he could have cashed it at Martin's Restaurant, where he had previously cashed many of his Reily checks and one unemployment check. That is particularly true if he received the check on September 25, 1963, as previously thought, and had left his apartment with his suitcases the evening before. (10) (70) The FBI never came up with any evidence which resolved the questions raised in Rankin's request. In sum, the Warren Commission developed no hard evidence that could substantiate the fact that Oswald was or was not in Dallas during the time period Odio said she saw him. (71) Although the Warren Commission stated that the FBI had not yet completed its investigation at the time its report went to press, (11) it was only 2 days after its September 16, 1964, interview of Loran Eugene Hall that the FBI interviewed William Seymour, who denied he ever had any contact with Silvia Odio and that he had been in Dallas with Hall in September 1963. (12) The FBI subsequently confirmed the fact that Seymour was working in Florida during September 1963. (13) On September 23, 1964, the FBI interviewed Loran Hall's other associate, Lawrence Howard. (14) Howard also denied he had ever contacted Silvia Odio. (15) The FBI then went back and re-interviewed Hall who then said that he had been accompanied on his trip to Dallas not by Seymour but by a Cuban friend he knew as "Wahito" and that he no longer recalled any contact with Odio. (16) The FBI determined that "Wahito" was Celio Sergio Castro(17) who, when interviewed, said he had never heard of or met Silvia Odio. (18) On October 1, 1964, the FBI showed Silvia Odio photographs of Loran Hall, William Seymour, Lawrence Howard and Celio Sergio Castro. (19) She examined the photographs and said that none of the individuals were identical to any of the three men who had come to her apartment door in Dallas. (20) (72) In view of the premature character of the Warren Commission's conclusion based on the impeached Loran Hall allegation and the unresolved question of Oswald's whereabouts at the time, the Odio incident remains one of the lingering enigmas in the original assassination investigation. Unfortunately, the nature of the incident makes it, from an investigative standpoint, particularly susceptible to the erosive effects of time. The canvassing, for instance, of both pro-Castro and anti-Castro groups in Dallas, New Orleans, and Miami in search of descriptive similarities to the men who visited Odio might have been fruitful at the time; today it is impractical. The construction of a composite sketch of the individuals when their features were still fresh in Odio's memory might have provided productive evidence 15 years ago; today it is of questionable value considering the natural adulteration of recall over that period of time. A search for the car that the men were driving might have been very productive at the time; today it is useless. The committee was, therefore handicapped by the limitations of the initial investigation and the paucity of evidence developed. The valid investigative approaches remaining were distressingly limited. Nevertheless, because of the potential significance of the Odio incident to a possible conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination, the committee decided that, in addition to pursuing any substantive leads it possible could, it would also attempt to verify the record regarding Silvia Odio's credibility and the details of her allegations. (73) Also of interest to the committee, of course, were the initial assertions of Loran Hall that he and two associates, William Seymour and Lawrence Howard, were the ones who had visited Odio in September. (21) All three had been actively involved in anti-Castro activity and were members of a group of soldiers of fortune called Interpen. (22) The group was arrested at No Name Key, Fla., in December 1962 as part of the Kennedy administration's crackdown on anti-Castro operations. (23) That policy, which highly incensed the anti-Castro and right-wing factions, was the result of an agreement Kennedy had made with Khrushchev and Castro. (24) Those factions considered the agreement a "betrayal."(25) (74) Loran Hall provided sworn testimony to the committee at an executive session on October 5, 1977. The following passage is an excerpt from that testimony: Q. Did there come a time when the FBI spoke to you about whether or not you visited Silvia Odio in September 1963? Hall. Yes; there was. Q. Who spoke to you? Hall. An FBI agent. Q. At that time were you advised why you were being questioned about Silvia Odio? Hall. I really don't recall. He stated as I recall, he stated something to the effect that were you ever in Dallas, Tex., and I said yes. He said do you know a Mrs. Odio, and I said I don't recall knowing a Mrs. Odio. I think I knew a Professor Odio, who was a professor at Texas, some university in Texas, just outside of Dallas, as I recall. He asked me anyway about the apartment building on Magellan and I said it is possible, I don't know. I said do you have a picture of her and he said no; I do not have. And I said, it is possible I met her but I don't recall. He then asked me who was with me and I told him I was with Alba and Howard, and then it was like maybe a month or two. Q. And you told him you were there with Howard and Alba? Hall. Yes. Q. On the first trip? Hall. Yes. We both read the same FBI report. You know it is directly contradictory to what I am saying. Q. So it is your testimony that at no time did you ever tell an FBI agent that you were in Dallas accompanied by Lawrence Howard and William Seymour, is that your testimony? Hall. That is true. Q. Were you ever directly or indirectly involved with Silvia Odio in acquiring military equipment for anti-Castro raids? Hall. No; I was not. (26) (75) The committee interviewed Lawrence Howard on May 23, 1978. Howard stated he has never met Silvia Odio. (27) The committee also interviewed William Seymour, who acknowledged his relationship with Hall and Howard but did not recall any details of a trip to Dallas, including meeting any Cubans there. (28) (76) The committee believed it important in its investigation to examine in detail the substance of Silvia Odio's allegations as well as their credibility. One of the problems faced by the committee was Odio's negative attitude toward a governmental investigation of the Kennedy assassination. Her attitude, she said, was the result of her relationship with the Warren Commission. (29) She expressed sharp disillusionment with the Warren Commission and said that it was obvious to her that the Commission did not want to believe her story. (30) A committee investigator noted that her whole demeanor was "one of sharp distrust of the Government's motives. She claims she feels she was just used by the Warren Commission for their own ends and she does not want to be put in the same position."(31) Nevertheless, after contact was established by the committee, Odio's cooperation with the committee was excellent, and she voluntarily submitted to interviews and, subsequently, sworn testimony. (77) Evidence indicated that Odio's story remained basically consistent with her Warren Commission testimony. There are, however, details concerning Odio, her background, and certain points of her story developed by the committee, which should be noted. (78) Silvia Odio was one of 10 children of Amador and Sarah Odio who were sent out of Cuba when their parents began taking an active part in a counterrevolutionary movement shortly after Castro took power. (32) Amador Odio was among Cuba's wealthy aristocracy, the personal friend of diplomats and Ambassadors, including, during the last days of the U.S. presence there, American Ambassador Phillip Bonsal. (33) Odio was owner of the country's largest trucking business and was once described in Time magazine as the "transport tycoon" of Latin America. (34) Yet, from their youth, both he and his wife were active, frontline fighters against the succession of tyrants who ruled Cuba. During the reign of Gen. Gerardo Machado in the 1930's, Sarah Odio was captured and beaten with a machete until her ribs were broken. (35) Twice during the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, the Odios were forced into exile for their revolutionary activity. (36) Amador Odio's trucks were the main supply line for the weapons and ammunition which kept Castro's hopes alive in the mountains. Yet when the Odios decided that Castro had "betrayed the revolution,"(37) they were among the founding members, with Manolo Ray, of one of the early, most aggressive anti-Castro groups, the Movimiento Revolucionario del Pueblo (MRP). (38) (79) Amador and Sarah Odio were arrested by Castro on October 26, 1961. (39) Their arrest was the result of the capture of MRP national coordinator Reynaldo Gonzales in hiding on their country estate. (40) Ironically, the Odios had once hosted the wedding of one of Fidel Castro's sisters on the very estate, a large, resort-like retreat in El Cano, outside of Havana. (41) Later, Castro would turn it into a national women's prison and Sarah Odio would spend 8 years incarcerated there, while her husband was placed in a cell on Isla de Pinos. (42) Reynaldo Gonzales had been wanted in connection with his involvement in the assassination attempt on Castro that had been organized by Antonio Veciana. (43) (80) Silvia was the oldest of the Odio's 10 children. (44) She had been sent for her early education to a private girls' school near Philadelphia and later returned to Cuba and attended law school there. (45) (81) When her parents were arrested, Silvia Odio was 24 years old, living in Puerto Rico with her husband and four young children. (46) The next year her husband, sent to Germany by the chemical firm for which he was working, deserted her and her children. (47) Destitute and alone, she began having emotional problem. (48) By that time, Silva's younger sister, Annie and Sarita, were settled in Dallas. (49) Sarita, a student at the University of Dallas, had become friendly with Mrs. Lucille Connell, the leader of women's club at a local Episcopal church who had organized a club program to provide financial and social support to the Dallas Cuban Refugee Center. (50) Connell also happened to be very active in the Mental Health Association of Dallas and, since her son was a psychiatrist, had personally acquired an interest in mental health problem. (51) When Sarita told Connell of her sister Silvia's plight, Connell made arrangements to have Silvia move to Dallas and to receive psychiatric treatment for her emotional problems at the Southwestern Medical School. (52) (82) According to Connell, who for a period was Silvia's closest confidante, Silvia's emotional problems, brought on by her suddenly being left alone with four young children, her parents being imprisoned and her lifestyle abruptly changing from one of wealth to one of deep destitution, were manifested in attacks of total loss of consciousness "when reality got too painful to bear."(53) Connell said she personally witnessed Odio suffer these attacks in her home when she first arrived in Dallas, but with psychiatric treatment their frequency subsided and they subsequently ended, until the Kennedy assassination. (54) (83) Silvia Odio had moved to Dallas in March 1963. (55) By September 1963 she was well established in the community, had a decent income from a good job, had her emotional problems under control and was doing well enough to be planning a move into a better apartment. (56) She was scheduled to make that move on October 1, 1963, a Monday. (57) The week before, she recalled, she had done some packing in preparation for the move and there were boxes scattered across her living room floor which she had to jump over to get to the door. (58) Her sister Annie, who was then 17, had come to the apartment to help her and babysit with her children. (59) When the doorbell rang early one evening in that last week of September, it was Annie who went to the door to answer it. (60) (84) The complex in which Silvia Odio lived at 1084 Magellan Circle in Dallas was a series of garden-type rental apartments, two-story units with four apartments to each unit. (61) The two lower units had front doors that faced a common inner vestibule which, in turn, bordered a small, open cement porch elevated a few steps above the ground level. (62) Both the vestibule and porch had overhead lights. (63) Silvia Odio lived in apartment A of the 1084 unit, a first floor apartment. (64) (85a) Annie Odio provided the committee with a sworn statement of her independent recollection. (65) She remembered the evening when three men came to the door of Silvia's apartment in Dallas. (66) One of the men asked to speak to Sarita. (67) He spoke English initially but when Annie answered him in Spanish he subsequently also spoke Spanish. (68) Annie told him that Sarita didn't live there. (69) Then, according to Annie's recollection: He said something, I don't recall exactly what, perhaps something about her being married, which made me think that they really wanted my sister Sylvia. I recall putting the chain on the door after I told them to wait while I went to get Silvia. I don't exactly recall but they may have also said something about belonging to JURE, the anti-Castro movement. (70) (85b) Annie also recalled that Silvia was initially reluctant to talk with the strange visitors because she was getting dressed to go out. But she remembered Silvia coming out in her bathrobe to go to the door. (71) Annie said that she could only recall what one of the two Latin men looked like, but it is not a specific recollection, only that he was heavy set, had dark shiny hair combed back and "looked Mexican."(72) She said " the one in the middle was American."(73) (85c) In testimony to the committee, Silvia Odio also recalled that the three men came to the door. (74) She recalled that it was a weekday because she worked that day. (75) She said the men identified themselves as members of JURE, spoke of both its founder, Manolo Ray, and her father, who had worked closely with Ray. (76) Odio said that almost all the conversation she had was with only one of the men, the one who identified himself as "Leopoldo."(77) (85d) Odio was positive in her recollection of the name "Leopoldo"(78) but said that the men admitted to her they were giving her aliases or "war names."(79) She was less certain of the other Latin's name, but believed it might have been "Angelo" or "Angel."(80) She described him, as her sister did, as being stocky, with black hair and looking "more Mexican than anything else."(81) The third visitor, the "American,"(82) was introduced to her as "Leon Oswald."(83) She said "Leon Oswald" acknowledged the introduction with a very brief reply, perhaps in idiomatic Spanish, (84) but she later concluded that he could not understand Spanish because of his lack of reaction to her Spanish conversation with "Leopoldo."(85) (86) Silvia Odio was relatively consistent in her testimony to the Warren Commission and to the committee in her specific descriptions of the three visitors. (86) Her description of "Leopoldo" was especially noteworthy because he has certain very distinct features, including an unusual hairline that is sharply recessed on the sides. (87) Her description of "Leon Oswald" was similar to the characteristics of Lee Harvey Oswald. (88) There was absolutely no doubt in her own mind that her visitor was, in fact, Lee Harvey Oswald. (89) She pointed out that she did have ample opportunity to view him, her conversation with the three men lasting more than 20 minutes, her viewing distance being only about 3 feet and the light available more than adequate. (90) She also recalled but not very clearly, that "Leopoldo" may have told her that they had just come from New Orleans. (91). (87) Odio told the committee, as she did the Warren Commission, (92) that the reason the men came to her was to get her help in soliciting funds in the name of JURE from local businessmen. (93) She said: He (Leopoldo) told me that he would like for me to write them in English, very nice letter, and perhaps we could get some funds. (94) That is consistent with the recollection of her sister Annie, who was in the apartment at the time the conversation was being conducted through the open door in the vestibule. She recalled that the men came because "they wanted something translated."(95) (88) According to Silvia Odio, her conversation with "Leopoldo" ended without her giving him any commitment to do anything, but he gave her the impression he would contact her again. (96) The visit ended without "Leon" or "Angelo" having any conversation with her aside from a brief greeting word or two. (97) After the men left, Odio decided to go to the window and watch them. (98) She saw them get into a red car that was parked in the driveway in front of the apartment. (99) She said she could not see who was driving the car, but did see "Angelo" on the passenger side of the car. (100) (89) The cloudiest part of Odio's recollection concerned the telephone call she later received from "Leopoldo."(101) It could have occurred, she said, the day after the visit or 2 days after the visit. (102) She thought it was in the afternoon, but she cannot remember. (103) She believed it was on a Saturday, when she was not working, but is not certain. (104) She was, however, relatively clear in her recollection of the gist of what "Leopoldo" told her when he called her on the telephone and that, too, was consistent with her testimony before the Warren Commission. (105) She said that "Leopoldo" told her that "the Gringo" had been a Marine, that he was an expert marksman and that he was "kind of loco."(106) She recalled: He said that the Cubans, we did not have any guts because we should have assassinated Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs. (107) (90) On the day that President Kennedy was assassinated, Silvia Odio was coming back from lunch when she heard the news. (108) She recalled: As soon as we got back to the office, everybody had their radios on and everybody was listening to it. By the time the news came that the President was dead, the president of the company told us that we could go home. I started going back to--I was very frightened and very upset * * * I started moving across the warehouse toward the parking lot where we kept our ears * * * I think next I had passed out. My mind was going around in circles * * *(109) (91) During her testimony before the committee, Odio was asked if, when she heard that Kennedy was assassinated, she thought of the three men who had visited her apartment almost 2 months prior. Her reply: "Oh, very definitely, very definitely."(110) She added: "I had put them out of my mind, but they came back that day."(111) (92) The next thing she remembered after blacking out was regaining consciousness later in a hospital room. (112) She recalled that her sister Annie had just entered. (113) She remembered watching the first image of Oswald she saw coming across the television screen in the hospital room: "Annie and I sort of looked at one another and sort of gasped. She said, 'Do you recognize him?' I said yes, and I said, 'Do you recognize him?' She said, 'It is the same guy, isn't it?' I said, 'Yes, but do not say anything.' "(114) (93) This excerpt from the independent sworn statement given to the committee by Annie Odio concerns the day of the assassination. On the day of the assassination of President Kennedy I had gone with my girlfriend, Cherie Matlock, and some other friends to a place where we could see the President's motorcade pass by. I don't remember where it was, only that it was quite a distance from downtown Dallas and Dealey Plaza. After the motorcade passed by we went to a drive-in restaurant for some hamburgers. When we were coming out of the drive-in we heard that Kennedy was shot. When I first heard that Kennedy was shot I did not make any connection between the shooting and the men who came to Silvia's door. Later in the afternoon I was by myself in the Matlock home when I first saw Oswald on television. My first thought was, "My God, I know this guy and I don't know from where! But I'm not going to tell anybody because they're going to think I'm crazy." But I kept thinking, "Where have I seen this guy?" Then my sister Sarita called and told me that Silvia had fainted at work and that she was sending her boyfriend Jim, who is now her husband to pick me up and take me to the hospital to see Silvia. Sarita did not tell me then why Silvia had fainted. I remember that it was getting dark when Jim picked me up and that we had to drive by Dealey Plaza. I don't remember Jim coming up to the room in the hospital with me when I saw Silvia. I don't remember anyone else in the room, but it was a very small room. Silvia was in bed. The first thing I remember when I walked into the room was that Silvia started crying and crying. I don't remember her saying anything. I think that I told her: "You know this guy on TV who shot President Kennedy? I think I know him." And she said: "No, I cannot recall, but I know I've seen him before." And then she told me: "Do you remember those three guys who came to the house?" And that's when I realized I had seen Oswald before. And then she told me everything, including the fact that one of the men had called back, that she had called him "Leon," that he said he wanted to be called "Leon," and that he said something like the Cubans should kill Kennedy because of what he did with the Bay of Pigs. Silvia also told me that when she first heard that President Kennedy was shot, she started saying: "Leon did it. Leon did it!" I remember that Silvia was very excited at the hospital and that she kept saying that she knew that Leon was going to do it. (115) (94) Because they were extremely frightened, concerned for their brothers and sisters and their own safety, worried about their mother and father in prison in Cuba and terrifyingly bewildered about the meaning of the three men's visit, Silvia and Annie Odio decided not to reveal the incident. (116) It was, in fact, only circuitously that the FBI came to learn of it. (95) According to Silvia Odio's close friend, Lucille Connell, she received a call from Silvia's sister Sarita who told her that Silvia had fainted and was in the hospital. (117) Sarita also told her why Silvia had fainted and the fact that Silvia had met Oswald and that he had come to her apartment. (118) Connell could not recall exactly when Sarita called; she said it was either the day of the assassination or the day after. (119) Connell said that Sunday, however, she was speaking on the telephone to a friend of hers, Mrs. Sanford Pick, then working as a receptionist in a Dallas law firm office, when they both saw Ruby shoot Oswald on their television sets. (120) Connell recalled: "And she said to me, 'Oh my goodness, Ruby was in our office last week and had power of attorney drawn for his sister.' "(121) (96) Connell said that later that same day she happened to be speaking with another friend, Marcella Insua, the daughter of the head of the Dallas Cuban Relief Committee. Connell mentioned to Insua what her other friend had said about Ruby being in her law office. (122) Insua, Connell said, happened to have a class of American children to whom she was teaching Spanish. (123) In that class, she got into a discussion of the Kennedy assassination and mentioned that she knew someone who knew someone who had some dealings with Ruby. (124) It also happened that there was a son of a local FBI agent in Insua's class. (125) That was how the FBI subsequently came to contact Connell and learn about the Odio incident. (126) (97) A factor in judging Odio's credibility was evidence that indicates that she told someone prior to the Kennedy assassination that three men visited her, that one of them was introduced to her as "Leon Oswald," and that she was told that this "Leon" had suggested assassinating President Kennedy. (98) Silvia Odio told the committee that immediately after the visit of the three men, she wrote to her father in prison in Cuba to ask him if he knew who they were. (127) Amador Odio, who was released from prison in 1969 and is now living in Miami, told committee investigators that he received Silvia's letter and replied to it. (128) He did not recall when he received the letter, but his reply, dated December 19, 1963, indicated it was very likely in late October or early November 1963. (129) He wrote: "Tell me who this is who says he is my friend be careful. I do not have any friend who might be here, through Dallas, so reject his friendship until you give me his name."(130) (99) Silvia Odio told the committee she recalled, although her recollection was "not very strong," that she also told Lucille Connell prior to the Kennedy assassination that three men had visited her apartment. (131) She said it had to have been before the assassination because she did not see Connell after the assassination as the result of a falling out between them. (132) Prior to that, however, Odio said, she was frequently at Connell's house and she specifically recalled a dinner party, "which may have had something to do with the Mental Health Association or been given in honor of some doctor or psychiatrist," at which, during a conversation in the library, she mentioned the visit of the three men. (133) She said it would have been very likely that she told Connell because "she was the type who was a very curious person about the details of your life. She always asked a lot of questions about my life and what I was doing."(134) (100) Lucille Connell told the committee she did not recall Silvia Odio specifically telling her about Oswald at any time, before or after the assassination. (135) She did not recall talking with Odio at a dinner party prior to the assassination, although, she said, she may have. (136) She said her contact with Silvia Odio had not been frequent within the months prior to the assassination. (137) (101) In her recollection the one person that Silvia Odio was most positive of telling prior to the assassination about the visit of the three men was her psychiatrist at the time, Dr. Burton C. Einspruch. (138) At the time of the Kennedy assassination, Odio had been seeing Einspruch for about 7 months, (139) usually on a weekly basis and occasionally more frequently. (140) She was suffering from what Einspruch described as "a situational life problem. She had a large family, she was semi-impoverished, she was an immigrant, her parents were imprisoned * * * she had all the difficulties one might anticipate a displaced person would have."(141) (102) Both the FBI and the Warren Commission staff questioned Einspruch after the assassination. (142) The FBI report noted that Einspruch believed Odio "is telling the truth."(143) The Warren Commission staff report noted that "Dr. Einspruch stated that he had great faith in Miss Odio's story of having met Lee Harvey Oswald." (144) Neither report indicated that Einspruch had been questioned about the specific details of Odio's allegations, whether he had been asked if Odio told him about the visit of the three men and, if she did, when she did. (145) (103) In sworn testimony to the committee, Einspruch reiterated his judgment of Odio as a "truthful" person. (146) He said he no longer had any files available to document his recollection, but he believed that Odio's visits to him had been scheduled, at around the time of the assassination, on Wednesdays. (147) (104) Einspruch specifically recalled that Odio had told him, during the normal course of the "format" of the sessions with her in which she related what happened during the previous week, (148) that she had been visited by three men. (149) He recalled that she told him of the visit prior to the assassination. (150) He was definite that she told him that two of the visitors were "Cubans or Latins" and that the third was an "Anglo."(151) He is not sure she mentioned the name "Leon" at his session with her prior to the assassination. (152) He did remember that when he telephoned Odio on the day of or the day after the assassination, she did mention "Leon" and she did "in a sort of historic way" connect the visit of the three men to the Kennedy assassination and did recognize one of those men as "Leon."(153) Einspruch could not recall, however, that Odio told him prior to the assassination that "Leopoldo" had telephoned her and spoke of "Leon" suggesting Kennedy be assassinated. (154) (105) As noted earlier, the committee's ability to investigate the substance of Silvia Odio's allegations was severely restricted, not only by the time that has elapsed since they were originally made, but also by the lack of material available in the basic investigative files. Both the Warren Commission and the FBI failed to pursue adequately the investigation when several leads still held a potential for development. The description provided by Odio of at least one of the Latin visitors, for instance, was detailed enough to justify a thorough canvassing of both the anti-Castro and pro-Castro militant Cuban communities in Dallas, New Orleans, and Miami for individuals with similar striking characteristics. That, in conjunction with a search for the specifically described car the men were seen driving, might have been fruitful. Committee reviews of Warren Commission files and FBI reports revealed no such investigative approach. The focus, instead, was on attempting to determine the possibility of Oswald being in Dallas when Odio reported she saw him. That approach proved inconclusive. (106) Nevertheless, there were other points that could be examined in attempting to determine the identity of the Silvia Odio visitors. The fact, for instance, that the men claimed to know her father and have knowledge of his activities appeared to be of possible investigatory significance. It was discovered, however, that a front page article in the Dallas News on May 5, 1962, could have provided a source of background information on Odio's parents. (155) The article featured a large photo of Annie and Sarita Odio and detailed the plight of their parents in prison as well as their backgrounds. (156) It also could be related to the fact that "Leopoldo" initially asked for Sarita when Annie Odio answered the door. (157) (107) Although the committee considered the possibility that the Odio visitors were being deceptive in claiming an association with the anti-Castro organization JURE, it nevertheless attempted to determine if they were, in fact, members of that group. The committee conducted extensive interviews with Amador Odio, (158) who was very active with JURE in Cuba prior to his imprisonment, and made an attempt to contact remaining members of the Dallas chapter of JURE. (159) Although the results of the committee's efforts must be viewed in terms of the lengthy period of time that had elapsed, no present recollection of JURE members active in 1963 who used the war names of "Leopoldo" or "Angelo" or fitted the descriptions provided by Silvia Odio could be found. (160) (108) In addition, the committee also interviewed the founder and leader of JURE, Manolo Ray, now living in Puerto Rico. (161) Ray said he had been questioned by the FBI about the Odio incident some time after the Kennedy assassination, but he was asked only about Silvia Odio's reliability and credibility. (162) "They told me that she had met Oswald," Ray said. "I don't remember them telling me that the men who came to her said they were members of JURE * * * (163) Ray told the committee that he knew of no members of JURE traveling through Dallas in September 1963 in search of money or arms. (164) He does not recall anyone by the name of "Leopoldo" or "Angelo" associated with JURE at the time. (165) He said he had no American contacts in Dallas, nor did he receive any major financial support from anyone there. (166) (109) In addition to these attempts to identify the Odio visitors, the committee asked Silvia Odio to review some 300 photographs of Cuban activists, both pro-Castro and anti-Castro, and individuals who had or may have had some association with Lee Harvey Oswald and the Kennedy assassination. (167) She could not identify any of the individuals in the photographs as being the two who came to her apartment with "Leon Oswald." (110) Finally, the committee requested the CIA to run a check on all individuals who used the "war names" of "Leopoldo" and "Angelo" during the period of interest. (168) The CIA response resulted in the photographs of three individuals who might have been in Dallas in September 1963. (169) The photographs were shown to Silvia Odio with negative results. (170) CONCLUSIONS (111) It appears that Silvia Odio's testimony is essentially credible. From the evidence provided in the sworn testimony of corroborating witnesses, there is no doubt that three men came to her apartment in Dallas prior to the Kennedy assassination and identified themselves as members of an anti-Castro Cuban organization. From a judgment of the credibility of both Silvia and Annie Odio, it must be concluded that there is a strong probability that one of the men was or appeared to be Lee Harvey Oswald. No conclusion about the significance of that visit could be reached. The possibilities were considered that Oswald actually had some association with JURE, the anti-Castro group headed by Manolo Ray, and that Oswald wanted it to appear that he had that association in order to implicate the group, politically a left-of-center Cuban organization, in the Kennedy assassination. (112) Additionally, no definite conclusion on the specific date of the visit could be reached. The possibility that it could have been as early as September 24, the morning of which Oswald was seen in New Orleans, exists. The visit was more likely on September 25,26, or 27. If it were, then Oswald, judging from evidence developed by both the Warren Commission and this committee, had to have had access to private transportation to get to Dallas from New Orleans a situation that indicates possible conspiratorial involvement. (113) The scope of its investigation in the Odio incident was limited as a result of the inadequate investigation performed by the FBI and the Warren Commission at the time. The lack of immediate recognition of the significance of the Odio incident produced a far from comprehensive investigation at the only time a comprehensive and perhaps, fruitful investigation would have been possible. Submitted by: GAETON J. FONZI, Investigator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 Warren Report: Testimony of Sylvia Odio (Part 1) The testimony of Sylvia Odio was taken at 9 a.m., on July 22, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission. Mr. Liebeler: Would you please rise and take the oath? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mrs. Odio: Yes; I do. Mr. Liebeler: Please sit down. My name is Wesley J. Liebeler. I am an attorney on the staff of the President's Commission investigating the assassination of President Kennedy. I have been authorized to take your testimony by the Commission, pursuant to authority granted to the Commission by Executive Order 11130 dated November 29, 1963, and joint resolution of Congress No. 137. Under the rules of the Commission, you are entitled to have an attorney present, if you wish one. You are also entitled to 3 days' notice of the hearing, and you are not required to answer any question that you think might incriminate you or might violate some other privilege you may have. I think the Secret Service did call you, or Martha Joe Stroud, here in the U.S. attorney's office, called you and gave you notice. Mrs. Odio: Yes. Mr. Liebeler: Do you wish to have an attorney present? Mrs. Odio: No; I don't think so. Mr. Liebeler: We want to ask you some questions about the possibility that you saw Lee Harvey Oswald. Mrs. Odio: Before you start, let me give you a letter of my father's which he wrote me from prison. You can have it. It was very funny, because at the time he wrote it, the FBI incident happened a week later. I told my father this man had been in my house and he introduced himself as your friend; and he wrote me back in December telling me that such people were not his friends, and he said not to receive anybody in my house, and not any of them were his friends, and he didn't know those people. At the time I did give the names of one or two, and he wrote back, "I actually don't know who they are." Mr. Liebeler: Let's come to this during the course of the questioning, but I am glad you brought it up. I do want to get to it, because it may help us determine who these people were. Mrs. Odio: Yes. Mr. Liebeler: First of all, would you tell us where you were born? Mrs. Odio: In Havana, Cuba. Mr. Liebeler: Approximately when? Mrs. Odio: 1937. Mr. Liebeler: How long did you live in Cuba? Mrs. Odio: Until, well, I studied in the United States, so I mean--you mean my whole life until--it was 1960. Mr. Liebeler: 1960? Mrs. Odio: Yes. Mr. Liebeler: Then you left Cuba and came to the United States, is that correct? Mrs. Odio: Yes. Mr. Liebeler: Where did you come to in the United States? Mrs. Odio: We first came to Miami, and we stayed there just a few days and left for Ponce, Puerto Rico, and we stayed there 2 years. Mr. Liebeler: Then from Ponce, did you come to Dallas? Mrs. Odio: From Ponce, I came straight to Dallas last year, March of last year. Mr. Liebeler: So that you have been in Dallas since March of 1963, is that correct? Mrs. Odio: That's right. Mr. Liebeler: You indicated that you had gone to school in the United States. Where? Mrs. Odio: Eden Hall Convent of The Sacred Heart, in Philadelphia. Mr. Liebeler: How long did you go to school there? Mrs. Odio: Three years. Mr. Liebeler: That is what, high school? Mrs. Odio: That's right. From 1951 to 1954. Mr. Liebeler: Was that period of 3 years the only time you were in the United States prior to the time that you came to Dallas in March of 1963? The only time in the United States over any extended period of time? Mrs. Odio: Excuse me, when I got married in 1957, I stayed 8 months--9 months in New Orleans. Mr. Liebeler: So that you lived in the United States for 9 months in 1956? Mrs. Odio. That's right. Mr. Liebeler: You had been in Philadelphia for 3 years from 1954 on, is that correct? Mrs. Odio: No; from 1951 to 1954, when I graduated. Mr. Liebeler: And for the period in New Orleans and when you came to the United States finally? Mrs. Odio: In 1960, December 25, 1960. Mr. Liebeler: So after you came in December of 1960, you went to Puerto Rico and lived in. Puerto Rico for 2 years, and you came to Dallas in 1963 and you have been here ever since? Mrs. Odio: That's right. Mr. Liebeler: Would you tell us briefly what your educational background is, Mrs. Odio? Mrs. Odio: Well, I had grammar school in Cuba. I started high school in Cuba and then I was sent to the Sacred Heart and I applied for college, and went back and studied law in the University of Villanova. I did not finish because my career was interrupted because of Castro, and I didn't finish law. Mr. Liebeler: How much training did you have in law? Mrs. Odio: I had almost 3 years. Mr. Liebeler: Of law study in Cuba? Mrs. Odio: Yes. Mr. Liebeler: My record indicates that on December 18, 1963, you were interviewed by two agents of the FBI, Mr. James P. Hoary and Bardwell D. Odum. Do you remember that? Mrs. Odio: That's correct. Mr. Liebeler: It is my understanding that they interviewed you at your place of work, is that correct? Mrs. Odio: Yes. Mr. Liebeler: Do you remember approximately what they asked you and what you told them? Mrs. Odio: I think I remember. Not exactly, but I think I can recall the conversation. Mr. Liebeler: Would you give us the content of that conversation, as best you can recall. Mrs. Odio: They told me they were coming because of the assassination of President Kennedy, that they had news that I knew or I had known Lee Harvey Oswald. And I told them that I had not known him as Lee Harvey Oswald, but that he was introduced to me as Leon Oswald. And they showed me a picture of Oswald and a picture of Ruby. I did not know Ruby, but I did recall Oswald. They asked me about my activities in JURE. That is the Junta Revolutionary, and it is led by Manolo Ray. I told him that I did belong to this organization because my father and mother had belonged in Cuba, and I had seen him (Ray) in Puerto recently, and that I knew him personally, and that I did belong to JURE. They asked me about the members here in Dallas, and I told him a few names of the Cubans here. They asked me to tell the story about what happened in my house. Mr. Liebeler: Who was it that you had seen in Puerto Rico? Mrs. Odio: Mr. Ray, I had seen. He was a very close friend of my father and mother. He hid in my house several times in Cuba. So they asked me to tell him how I came to know Oswald, and I told them that it was something very brief and I could not recall the time, exact date. I still can't. We more or less have established that it was the end of September. And, of course, my sister had recognized him at the same time I did, but I did not say anything to her. She came very excited one day and said, "That is the man that was in my house." And I said, "Yes; I remember." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now