Gerald Posner and the Eyewitness Accounts

[Pat Speer]

It is to Posner's credit, however, that he signed the letters demanding the CIA release all the info on George Joannides.  Maybe he has some respect for the truth after all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But so did John McAdams. One of the reasons why I don't think this is a very productive line of inquiry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does this mean you think someone, even at this late date, is coaching McAdams and Posner on what to cover-up?

I think their reasons for signing the letters, as stated in the recent letter, make perfect sense. They believe Oswald did it and that the Joannides files will reveal nothing new. They are anxious for his files to be released so they can say "see, I told you so." I wouldn't be surprised if there are some real nuggets in the file--perhaps a report from Bringuier indicating the fight in the streets of NO (currently under water) was staged.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

It is to Posner's credit, however, that he signed the letters demanding the CIA release all the info on George Joannides.  Maybe he has some respect for the truth after all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But so did John McAdams. One of the reasons why I don't think this is a very productive line of inquiry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does this mean you think someone, even at this late date, is coaching McAdams and Posner on what to cover-up?

I think their reasons for signing the letters, as stated in the recent letter, make perfect sense. They believe Oswald did it and that the Joannides files will reveal nothing new. They are anxious for his files to be released so they can say "see, I told you so." I wouldn't be surprised if there are some real nuggets in the file--perhaps a report from Bringuier indicating the fight in the streets of NO (currently under water) was staged.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pat, I suspect your reasoning is correct. The idea that Posner, McAdams etc do nothing but lie, and missinform is itself incorrect,where the truth is the easiest option to support their theory, then thats what they employ. And both like nothing better than a wild conspiracy theory that can be easily demonstrated to be false, it allows them to insinuate that any anti W/C thinking deserves the same treatment.

[Blair Dobson]

[

For clarity's sake, you mean Posner, not Groden, correct?

LOL .. I am laughing at myself..Yes I meant Posner and Not Groden...

It was late when I posted that..

(egg on face...)

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Lets turn to how Posner deals with the testimony regarding the possible impersonation of Oswald. The first one I want to look at is the most famous of these, the Odio incident. Sylvia & Annie Odio were the two Cuban sisters who claimed they were visited on either the 26th or 27th of Sept 1963, by three men, one of whom they said was called Leon Oswald, they further claimed that this man bore a striking resemblence to LHO. This, if true, is hughly damaging to posner's lone nut theory, so what exactly did the sisters claim, they reported (through a nieghbour) that they were visited without warning by three men, all strangers, two Latins and a white American. The men told the sisters that they belonged to JURE, an anti Castro grouping,(although well to the left of most exile groups) that Sylvia had helped to form a few months earlier. The leader identified himself as "Leopoldo"The second Latin man was called "Angelo or Angel" The third man was identified as "Leon Oswald", He was younger than the other two, and stood quietly,taking no part in the discussion that followed, all three, Sylvia noticed were unkempt, in need of a wash and a shave. Leopoldo told her they were on a trip to gather funds for anti Castro activities, and had just arrived from New Orleans, he claimed they were working for the Exile Cuban Revolutionary Council, as well as being members of JURE. They knew her fathers "Underground" name, and they appeared well informed about recent plans to assassinate Castro. Despite this the Sisters were uneasy, their father had warned them against the twisted intrigues of exile politics, so Sylvia informed her visitors that she wanted no part in a campaign of violence, the men left shortly after. Less than 48 hours later Leopoldo phoned Sylvia, amoungst other things he reminds her of the American, and asks what she thought of him, he tells her Oswald is "kind of nuts"and that he had been a Marine, and an expert "Shotman"(sic) and that Oswald had said the Cubans were gutless for not killing Kennedy after the BOP fiasco. Odio said that the conversation made her nervous, and that she ended it as soon as possible. She never hears from any of the men again. After the assassination she claims to recognise "Leon Oswald" as the man charged with killing Kennedy, & Tippet.

So, lets see how Mr Posner handles this potential bombshell, first he resusitates the Loran Hall story,Posner says the FBI thought they had solved the Odio mystery in early 1964, when it found three men who might have visited her appartment,one Loran Hall bore a strong resemblence to "Leopoldo" Hall named his two companions as Lawrence Howard, & William Seymour, Howard posner claims looks like "Angelo" & Seymour greatly resembled Oswald, right down to a beard stubble as described by Odio, however four days later Hall recanted his statement, Seymour and Howard also denied that they had been at Odio's. Posner says," Odio also stuck to her story, and said she could not identify them as the men" He finishes, "But even if the visitors were Hall, Howard and Seymour"!!

Right lets go, Posner is insinuating, without a shred of evidence that this pile of excrement might be true, its not, the wheels had fallen off within days of Halls claims, and, it was not as posner claims, Hall who recanted first, but Howard & Seymour, who told the FBI that nothing of the sort had occured, only when faced with this did Hall retract his story. But with the help of the W/C it had the effect of relegating prime evidence of a conspiracy to a side show.Also notice the two little Lawyers tricks Posner uses, quote "Odio also stuck to her story"Well Gerald as all three men had at this time admitted to not visiting her, it would have been surprising for her to have said anything else, would it not? Quote, "Even if the visitors were Hall Howard & Seymour" Eh!! THEY WERE NOT, THEY ADMITTED THEY WERE NOT, THE FBI SAID THEY WERE NOT, THE HSCA SAID THEY WERE NOT. Only Mr posner continues to plow this particular barren field. So why is Posner giving mouth to mouth to a lie that was nailed 40 years ago? to prop up a thread bare theory. Of course the big question that he never ask's is why did Hall make this claim in the first place, and under who's instructions was he opperating.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

For those becoming familiar with Mr Posner's technique it will come as no surprise that the next tactic is "trash the witness"and posner plays hardball with Odio, it is vital to his theory to destroy the odio evidence by fair means or foul, and as he has very little of the fair variety he gives foul all he's got. During a long and fairly rambling few sentances Posner says of Odio,"She had a history of emotional problems" "She had seen a psychiatrist about marital problems" "She had lost custody of her children" "She had a tendancy to exagerate" And you will love this " Her Mother in Law ( From a failed and bitter marrage) said Odio was an excellent actress who could fabricate such an episode if she wished" I find it absolutely hypocritical that Posner quotes CIA low level scumbags like Hall, and frightened junkies like Givens as if he's citing George Washington, but give him a witness hostile to his theory and off come the gloves. He insinuates that the sisters are doing this for attention, and so has to nod and wink about Sylvia's "Mental problems" But he's got a few problems here (1) Three men did visit the sisters within the time frame given, Annie testifies to this fact. (2) although Annie doesn't hear all the discussion, she testifies that it concerns exile politics/plots, she further backs up Sylvia's description of the men, two latin, one white American. (3) Sylvia tells her psychiatrist about the visit prior to kennedys assassination, he said she seemed disturbed by the incident,she also mentions it in a letter to her father again prior to the event (substantiated by her father) (4) If, as posner hints at, this was all done for attention, why did the sisters vow to keep quite about it, why did a neighbour have to bring it to the FBI's attention (after Sylvia had sworn her to silence) hardly the actions of an attention seeker. The Odio's were little more in reality than frightened little girls, seperated from a loving family, and living in a unfamiliar environment,why as anti Castro Cubans whould they draw attention to themselves by claiming to have been in contact with the man who assassinated Kennedy, it makes no sence at all. Oh and BTW, I know many people who would not want a character reference form their Mother in Law

[John Dolva]

Steve, Gaeton Fonzi provides a fairer account of Odio in 'last investigation'. After outlining her background he concludes : "Based on character and background alone Sylvia and Annie were highly credible witnesses.Their story held up through my heavy checking and I was completely convinced they were telling the truth" alsewhere he states that he can see it possible to prove a conspiracy based on the Odio incident alone. He explains the background to Silvia's problems in a way that certainly makes Posner out to be a dork. (i'm reading the last investigation' while also following your informative post, it makes for an interesting contrast.)

[James Richards]

For those who collect photos, the Odio Sisters.

James

[Mark Knight]

Is Posner not simply employing the tactics of a lawyer? He hammers home the point he wants to make, and when he can't shake the testimony of the rebuttal witness, he attacks the credibility of the witness.

While his tactics may outrage folks, the very same ones are played out in courtrooms across the US every day. And as with Posner, the attorney is concerned with winning the case, and not necessarily with discovering the truth.

Perry Mason was, after all, a fictional character. Never forget that.

[Tim Gratz]

See my post re the men at Odio's door.

Posner's attack on Odio is now destroyed. A very credible reporter, Professor Joan Mellen, has interviewed a Cuban exile, Angel Murgado, who told her that he was indeed at Odio's door, accompanied by Lee Harvey Oswald!

[John Dolva]

Is Posner not simply employing the tactics of a lawyer?  He hammers home the point he wants to make, and when he can't shake the testimony of the rebuttal witness, he attacks the credibility of the witness.

While his tactics may outrage folks, the very same ones are played out in courtrooms across the US every day.  And as with Posner, the attorney is concerned with winning the case, and not necessarily with discovering the truth.

Perry Mason was, after all, a fictional character.  Never forget that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mark, my thoughts too. Sounds like a lawyer, looks like..etc. Who's the client?

If what Tim says about the Odio trio turns out to be true, there's the case for a conspiracy proven. Enough to reopen investigation? DPD, you listening? You say you don't close the book on Murder in Texas.

[Tim Gratz]

I believe the revelation that Oswald was indeed at Odio's door should be sufficient to re-open an investigation. The game may not yet be over, my friends!

But I do not think the Odio incident necessarily proves conspiraacy.

Assume that Oswald actually told Leopoldo what Leopoldo relayed to Odio. Two possibilities suggest themselves:

(1) Oswald was indeed a "nut" (didn't Leopoldo call him "a little loco" or words to that effect?). Of course, for other reasons apart from the Odio incident I reject that thesis.

(2) Oswald was a US agent provocateur trying to draw out violent anti-Castro Cubans through such provocative lines. (What else does an agent provocateur do but provocotate?) He may have also been used as an agent provocateur with pro-Castro Cubans. (Or perhaps an imposter using his credentials in Mexico City.) Didn't the Mexico City Oswald (by some accounts) offer to kill Kennedy for the Cubans?

If (2) is true, it is possible the Odio incident was unrelated to the assassination. On the other hand, it is certainly possible that a conspirator deliberately associated Oswald with a Cuban who was close to the Kennedys.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Is Posner not simply employing the tactics of a lawyer?  He hammers home the point he wants to make, and when he can't shake the testimony of the rebuttal witness, he attacks the credibility of the witness.

While his tactics may outrage folks, the very same ones are played out in courtrooms across the US every day.  And as with Posner, the attorney is concerned with winning the case, and not necessarily with discovering the truth.

Perry Mason was, after all, a fictional character.  Never forget that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well of course Posner comes on like a lawyer,its what he is, Snakes slither, lions roar, and lawyers sell you the brooklyn bridge. But in the context of this thread thats hardly the point. I know guys like you dont buy Posners ware's,the point of this thread was to expose as many of his lies, spins,& character assassinations as possible for newcomers to the case. So can we please get back on topic, there are plenty of other threads to discuss re-opening the case, this aint one of them.

[Mark Knight]

Stephen, my point was merely that Posner's tactics, while commonly used, don't necessarily lead one to the truth. Posner's concern is with selling the LN theory, and truth is just an expendable inconvenience to folks of his ilk.

And I also agree with the original purpose of this thread, which is the exposure of Posner's less-than-forthright tactics, so that rookie researchers aren't taken in by his bogus arguments.

As we used to say in the '70's...keep on truckin', Stephen!!!

Edited September 2, 2005 by Mark Knight

[Dawn Meredith]

it's "Posner".

Not to detract from your post......

I wouldn't waste my time reading his stuff if I were you, however....

As far as newbies being swayed, anyone who cannot see the lack of brain power Posner suffers from is not someone I care to worry about..

My first experience was seeing him on a documentary made by the CBC (I will lookup which one if it's important..) and Posner just looked and acted like he was reading off cards provided by the Warren Commission.

If someone has a credible lone nut theory that doesn't rely on the magic bullet/Oswald was a grumpy loser, I'll buy twenty copies first day it hits shelves. I'll give anything a chance if the author is sincere with their work, even if i disagree with it.

Posner and his awful "research" don't hold up at all.

His spin is mighty weak as well.

In my opinion, judging by the rest of his work, the man is a stooge who couldn't hold up to a proper line of questioning if you handed him the answers on a plate.

I don't know who I dislike more, Posner or the late David Belin, who both talk out of the sides of their mouths.

Both of those men and their "work" are poison to anyone seriously looking into this case but distilling it for others imho is a waste of your time.

Even reiterating it lends it more value than it deserves.

not trying to jack your thread....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Blair,

We here who have studied this case know this is true, BUT:

The media gives Posner a lot of attention. Most regular folk are not aware that the media in this country is controlled and that they have played an active role in covering up the assassination.

Posner's book sold very well and got a lot of help in so doing. COntrast that to the scathing reviews given to Oliver Stone's "JFK" well before this film even came out. It first aired here in Austin 12/20/91, and by then I had at least 6 front page magazine articles just TRASHING it. A first for any movie in the United States.

So I think what Stephen is doing on this thread is GREAT, and highly appreciated by myself, for the newcomers who don't know that Posner is a PAID xxxx, IMHO.

Dawn

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Dawn, thanks for the nice comments, Mark, keep on truckin yourself, sorry if I came accross a bit harsh, but I was watching the scenes from New Orleans at the time, and they made me ever so slightly angry.

I still have lots to post on this thread, what I'm aiming for is a complete re-buttal of "Case closed" perhaps Mr Posner may care to come to the Forum to argue for his work, but I shant be holding my breath. Next is going to be Posners handling of De Mohrenschiltd, probably later today, or tomorrow, enjoy...Steve.