Jump to content
The Education Forum

Angel Murgado (Angelo Kennedy)


Recommended Posts

It seems that during the next few months Angelo Murgado (Angelo Kennedy) will become a important figure for those investigating the assassination of JFK. It seems that he is a major new source for Joan Mellen’s forthcoming book, Farewell to Justice.

Murgado has already been discussed on a couple of other threads. See:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4996

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3128

However, I think he deserves his own thread. I hope members will add any information they have on Murgado. At the moment there is virtually no information on Murgado on the web or in books on the JFK assassination.

It seems that in the early 1960s Murgado played an active role in the campaign to overthrow the government of Fidel Castro. He also took part in the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.

According to Gerry Hemming, he introduced Murgado to Gus Russo in 1997. An interview with Murgado appeared in his book, Live By the Sword. In the book, Murgado claims that he accompanied Robert Kennedy on more than one occasion to the home of Norman Rothman, a mobster with ties to Meyer Lansky.

Gerry also took Joan Mellen to meet Murgado on 27th June, 2005. Apparently he gave her a great deal of important information. A summary of this can be found in an article that Joan wrote for the Key West Citizen (2nd September, 2005):

Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer's revelation that the Able Danger intelligence unit had reported to Philip Zelikow, the executive staff director of the 9/11 Commission, about identifications of Mohammed Atta and other future hijackers working as part of a cell of Al Qaeda operating in the United States at least a year before 9/11, only for this vital information to be suppressed, invites a parallel with a presidential commission forty-two years ago this coming November.

As reported by the "New York Times" and other news organizations, not only was the information that an attack was being planned known, later Pentagon denials notwithstanding, but also Defense Department lawyers prevented the Able Danger unit from sharing this information with the F.B.I. A Navy captain named Scott Phillpott, according to the Associated Press, apparently also reported to the 9/11 Commission on these Able Danger findings, to no avail.

It may be that the immediate motive for the emergence of these astonishing facts involves lobbying for increasing funding for domestic military surveillance. Yet Colonel Shaffer has opened a window onto presidential commissions and their failure of responsibility to an informed citizenry. "Information has to get out, and I think we have to account for why some of these things weren't looked at as part of the overall report," Shaffer said on National Public Radio.

The incident suggests a parallel to the final days of the Warren Commission, which discovered that Lee Harvey Oswald had visited a Cuban exile and former law student named Sylvia Odio in Dallas in late September 1963. Just as the 9/11 Commission did not investigate the Able Danger information, despite Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer's offer to them of a full set of documents, so the Warren Commission conducted only the most cursory of inquiries into the Odio visit. As Mrs. Odio testified before the Warren Commission, she was told the next day by one of her visitors that Oswald had remarked, "President Kennedy should have been assassinated after the Bay of Pigs, and some Cubans should have done that.... it is so easy to do it."

The Warren Commission lacked a context to evaluate this incident because it had not been informed of the C.I.A.'s attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro, now a matter of public record, and a matter to be concealed, unlike today when a Pat Robertson can openly advocate the assassination of a foreign leader. Had the Odio incident been explored fully, some uncomfortable truths might have emerged, truths that could have modified the conclusions of the Warren Report, just as Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer's information, tested, might have altered the findings of the 9/11 Commission, and the biography of Mohammed Atta been more thoroughly researched.

In my own study of the Kennedy assassination for my book, "A Farewell to Justice," I discovered that parallel to these secret efforts by the C.I.A., Robert F. Kennedy was organizing his own clandestine plots to assassinate Fidel Castro. The sources are the released minutes of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the Church Committee papers, and the Cubans who worked closely with the Attorney General.

Bobby's instruction to his special team was twofold. It was to discover a means of ridding the Kennedy administration of the Communist thorn in its side "ninety miles from home." It was also to protect his brother from the murderous impulses of an anti-Castro Cuban incensed by John F. Kennedy's refusal to support the invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs.

Among those closest to Bobby Kennedy was a man still living in Florida today, Angelo Murgado, who, during the summer of 1963, traveled on Bobby's behalf to New Orleans. Moving among, as he puts it, "Castro's agents, double agents, and Cubans working for the C.I.A., he hoped to "neutralize" a future assassin.

In New Orleans, Mr. Murgado met Lee Harvey Oswald, who resided there in the city of his birth from April to September 1963. Hitherto unreported is that Bobby Kennedy became aware of Oswald - before the assassination.

Bobby even discovered that Oswald was working for the F.B.I., a fact brought to the attention of the Warren Commission as well, and subsequently confirmed for the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s by an F.B.I. employee, William Walter, who viewed the Bureau's copious files on Oswald at the New Orleans field office when Oswald was arrested that August for a staged fracas on Canal Street where he was handing out "Fair Play for Cuba" leaflets.

"If the F.B.I. is controlling him," Bobby reasoned, according to Mr. Murgado, "he's no problem." Operating alone, covertly, suspecting a threat to his brother, Bobby underestimated who Oswald was and ceased to make him a major target of his concern. Bobby knew "something was cooking in New Orleans," Angel Murgado says, New Orleans that harlot city now destroyed by flood in a catastrophe of Biblical proportion, New Orleans that sin city where the Kennedy assassination incubated. But Bobby held back. He urged "caution," and apparently he did not share what he knew about Oswald with those who should have been expected to help him protect the President.

Angelo Murgado and a fellow veteran of the Bay of Pigs, in September, were the men who traveled with Oswald from New Orleans to Dallas where they visited Sylvia Odio. (Mrs. Odio testified that the three traveled together although Angelo says that when he and Leopoldo, who drove from New Orleans together, arrived at Sylvia Odio's, Oswald was already there, sitting in the apartment. That "Leopoldo" and Angelo both knew Oswald, there is no doubt). Their objective, or so Angelo thought, was to search for help in their anti-Castro efforts; they talked to Mrs. Odio about buying arms to overthrow Castro. Angelo believed he could trust his companion, referred to in the Warren Report as "Leopoldo," because not only was he a fellow veteran of the Bay of Pigs, but his brother was running for mayor of Miami. He was respectable.

Out of Angelo's hearing, "Leopoldo" phoned Mrs. Odio the next day to tell her how "Leon" Oswald had talked about the need to murder President Kennedy. "Leon" is "kind of nuts," Leopoldo said, a conclusion reflected in the Warren Report.

Placing Oswald in the company of so close an associate of Bobby Kennedy, in an incident that points to foreknowledge of the assassination, created a trap that would silence Bobby forever, rendering him powerless to make public what he knew about the death of his brother. He asked his aide, Frank Mankiewicz, whether "any of our people were involved," and, Mankiewicz told me, he thought, did you think there might be? The conversation stopped there.

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 men who visited Mrs. Odio are identified here for the first time in print.

"Leopoldo" was Bernardo de Torres, who testified before the HSCA with immunity granted to him by the C.I.A., so that he was not questioned about the period of time leading up to the Kennedy assassination, as the C.I.A. instructed the Committee on what it could and could not ask this witness. Both the Warren Commission and the HSCA buried the anti-Castro theme, and never explored what Bobby might have known. It might be that the assassination of President Kennedy could have been prevented, just as the apprehension of the people uncovered by the Able Danger team, aided by the F.B.I., had it been granted the opportunity, might have altered the course of the 9/11 tragedy.

That Robert F. Kennedy not only knew about Lee Harvey Oswald, but also viewed him as a danger, is alone shocking. That Bobby put Oswald in New Orleans under surveillance, only to conclude that Oswald posed no threat because he was "just" involved in assassination plots against Fidel Castro, is a chilling precedent for the disasters we may continue to expect from a freewheeling approach to public accountability by government commissions that appear to be willing to keep the citizenry ignorant, and hence vulnerable to attack.

There has been great debate about the identity of the three men who visited Sylvia Odio on 25th September, 1963. According to Odio, two of the men, Leopoldo and Angelo, said they were members of the Junta Revolucionaria. The third man, Leon, was introduced as an American sympathizer who was willing to take part in the assassination of Fidel Castro. After she told them that she was unwilling to get involved in any criminal activity, the three men left.

Odio became convinced that after the assassination of John F. Kennedy that Leon was Lee Harvey Oswald. Odio gave evidence to the Warren Commission and one of its lawyers commented: "Silvia Odio was checked out thoroughly... The evidence is unanimously favorable... Odio is the most significant witness linking Oswald to the anti-Castro Cubans."

Research carried out by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on behalf of the Warren Commission suggested that the three men were Loran Hall, William Seymour and Lawrence Howard. These were all members of Interpen. Hall later claimed Leon was not Oswald.

The author, Anthony Summers, suggests that the visit had "been a deliberate ploy to link Junta Revolucionaria, a left-wing exile group, with the assassination". However, G. Robert Blakey interviewed Loran Hall, William Seymour and Lawrence Howard and claims that they did not visit Odio.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Here are some postings from other threads that deal with this issue of Angelo Murgado.

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

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

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

(3) LHO.

Also according to Mr. Hemming, they visited Mrs. Odio because of her JURE connections and their ultimate objective was to find assets in Cuba to kill Fidel.

I have wondered whether what was going on in Mexico City was an attempt to put someone into Cuba (either LHO or someone using his name) to kill Fidel.

If I recall right, the HSCA indicated LHO could have visited Odio and still been in Mexico City if he had private transportation available.

Also according to Hemming LHO was loyal to our side; his involvement with American intelligence, then, necessitated the cover-up.

Comments?

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

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

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

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

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

or Police the afternoon of Nov. 22.

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

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

There has been a major development in this case.

Professor Joan Mellen, author of the upcoming "A Farewell to Justice" wrote a letter to "The Key West Citizen" prompted by the articles Mark and I wrote. In that article, she states that in her book she identifies Angel as Angel Murgado, and Leopoldo as Bernardo de Torres.

Mark interviewed her on Monday and she stated that a few months ago she interviewed Mr. Murgado and he confirmed that he was indeed at Odio's door with Lee Harvey Oswald, confirming what Mr. Hemming had told us.

In my opinion, this demolishes the Warren Commission report's "rush to judgment" on the Odio incident as well as Posner's curt dismissal of its importance in "Case Closed".

More details must await the issuance of her book in November.

Link to post
Share on other sites

James Richards had de Torres pegged as Leopoldo a few years ago. The question is, when did de Torres start running Oswald.

Just a hunch: Murgado lied through his teeth. Insinuating Bobby into the Odio incident is just the kind of thing the Bringuiers of the world specialized in. I'm extremely skeptical about this new development. If anyone is ever able to show that Bobby knew about Oswald before 11-22 1963 I'll eat my hat, which means I'll have to buy one first.. The "one of your guys" comment was made while Bobby was lashing out and in shock. On the morning after the assassination, he is reported to have asked McCone if the CIA did it. Days later he told Schlesinger it was either Castro or the gangsters. He knew nothing but suspected everything. If he'd have heard of Oswald, known Oswald, or recognized him from the camps, he would have used this information and conducted his own investigation. Don't swallow this new info whole.

How much do we really know about Murgado? If he'd have heard via Eduardo and Artime that Second Naval was a scam and that Attwood was talking to Lechuga, what would have been his response????

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

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

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

Joan Mellen wrote (in her article):

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

I found this paragraph in her article most interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have multiple responses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pat wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert wrote (in part):

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

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

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

Yes, you're the first person to do Hemming's latest bidding. That and a dollar will buy you a coffee. Let us assume that Hemming knew the IDs of L&A all along. Why did he wait until Mellen's book was being printed to 'scoop' her on this point? Surely it wasn't life-threatening to Hemming to put this into the public domain at any prior point in the past 40-plus years? This is merely the latest instance in which Hemming has decided to insinuate himself into an historical circumstance, and claim knowledge that may or may not be true. Your uncritical acceptance of whatever he utters is very useful to him in this.

Let's have a quick look back at what Hemming told Weberman some years back:

"You want the real story behind the Odio incident? She was a suspected Castro agent. Her father was a basically a hostage in a Cuban prison who plotted against Castro with Veciana. You know why you are not given a security clearance if you have relatives behind the Iron Curtain? She's considered a Socialist, so she's on the wrong side. To reinforce that, there's a potential that she's being blackmailed and she's working as a Castro agent..... I dealt with Manolo Ray. We could link up this dude with somebody that's already in the files. HUNT hated him for running the resistance against Batista. HUNT'S on Batista's side. This is the enemy, people who could have killed him while he was in Havana. They were killing people. Blowing up the sewer system and the telephone system. That xxxxed up his party routine. He probably felt insecure going to the local whorehouse. I know one of the guys who took OSWALD to Sylvia Odio. This was a setup to dirty-up OSWALD with suspected Castro agent Sylvia Odio. They'd build a file on her. Either they are building this guy's credibility to go kill Castro, or they've abandoned that, and said, 'xxxx that, we have to make this guy look like a Castro agent and have him do something serious in this country that's provocative.'"

According to Hemming's rather odd logic, it was necessary to taint Oswald with Ms. Odio, a purported Castro agent - despite the fact that her family had lost its holdings to Castro, that her father was in Castro's prison and her entire family worked to overthrow Castro by supporting the least fascist alternative, Manolo Ray. Yet this is the infallible source whose every utterance you believe to be gospel? Please, dear boy, do get a grip. It was not Oswald being tainted by Odio, but Odio's group JURE being tainted by Oswald prior to his date with infamy.

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

Given the long legacy of lies, distortions and logical contortions that have masqueraded as stunning new revelations over the past four decades, you seem far more hopeful than that history would justify. Whatever fear for his safety kept Hemming from speaking up for the past 40-ish years seems to have evaporated with the knowledge that an academic woman is brave enough to break this news to the world. 'Tis an oddly poetic twist that a man's man who refers to his detractors as "girls" has only located his gumption when a mere slip of a woman is about to demonstrate the very bravery he has declined to exemplify in the past.

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

I have also studied the case enough to know other things:

Sturgis and the Buchanan brothers made similar claims that LHO had tried to infiltrate their virile sounding International Anti-Communist Brigade, even writing articles on the topic in the Florida press. When asked by the FBI about this, Sturgis back-tracked and called it mere "speculation." You can file Hemming's identical claims under an identical heading.

John Martino and Nathaniel Weyl both depicted Oswald as a Castro agent bent upon infiltrating the patriotic anti-Castro movement on El Jefe's behalf. Prior to his death, Martino recanted to a Newsday reporter and admitted he had spread lies about Oswald to implicate him as a Castro agent.

Despite claims by all of the above, including your newest publicity client, it is not possible for Oswald to have been in Florida to make the purported approaches, at the times reported, due to his being demonstrably elsewhere at the time. This may suggest impersonation, but the likelier explanation is that you're being fed fantasy falsely labelled as fact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert wrote (in part):

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

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

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

Yes, you're the first person to do Hemming's latest bidding. That and a dollar will buy you a coffee. Let us assume that Hemming knew the IDs of L&A all along. Why did he wait until Mellen's book was being printed to 'scoop' her on this point? Surely it wasn't life-threatening to Hemming to put this into the public domain at any prior point in the past 40-plus years? This is merely the latest instance in which Hemming has decided to insinuate himself into an historical circumstance, and claim knowledge that may or may not be true. Your uncritical acceptance of whatever he utters is very useful to him in this.

Let's have a quick look back at what Hemming told Weberman some years back:

"You want the real story behind the Odio incident? She was a suspected Castro agent. Her father was a basically a hostage in a Cuban prison who plotted against Castro with Veciana. You know why you are not given a security clearance if you have relatives behind the Iron Curtain? She's considered a Socialist, so she's on the wrong side. To reinforce that, there's a potential that she's being blackmailed and she's working as a Castro agent..... I dealt with Manolo Ray. We could link up this dude with somebody that's already in the files. HUNT hated him for running the resistance against Batista. HUNT'S on Batista's side. This is the enemy, people who could have killed him while he was in Havana. They were killing people. Blowing up the sewer system and the telephone system. That xxxxed up his party routine. He probably felt insecure going to the local whorehouse. I know one of the guys who took OSWALD to Sylvia Odio. This was a setup to dirty-up OSWALD with suspected Castro agent Sylvia Odio. They'd build a file on her. Either they are building this guy's credibility to go kill Castro, or they've abandoned that, and said, 'xxxx that, we have to make this guy look like a Castro agent and have him do something serious in this country that's provocative.'"

According to Hemming's rather odd logic, it was necessary to taint Oswald with Ms. Odio, a purported Castro agent - despite the fact that her family had lost its holdings to Castro, that her father was in Castro's prison and her entire family worked to overthrow Castro by supporting the least fascist alternative, Manolo Ray. Yet this is the infallible source whose every utterance you believe to be gospel? Please, dear boy, do get a grip. It was not Oswald being tainted by Odio, but Odio's group JURE being tainted by Oswald prior to his date with infamy.

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

Given the long legacy of lies, distortions and logical contortions that have masqueraded as stunning new revelations over the past four decades, you seem far more hopeful than that history would justify. Whatever fear for his safety kept Hemming from speaking up for the past 40-ish years seems to have evaporated with the knowledge that an academic woman is brave enough to break this news to the world. 'Tis an oddly poetic twist that a man's man who refers to his detractors as "girls" has only located his gumption when a mere slip of a woman is about to demonstrate the very bravery he has declined to exemplify in the past.

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

I have also studied the case enough to know other things:

Sturgis and the Buchanan brothers made similar claims that LHO had tried to infiltrate their virile sounding International Anti-Communist Brigade, even writing articles on the topic in the Florida press. When asked by the FBI about this, Sturgis back-tracked and called it mere "speculation." You can file Hemming's identical claims under an identical heading.

John Martino and Nathaniel Weyl both depicted Oswald as a Castro agent bent upon infiltrating the patriotic anti-Castro movement on El Jefe's behalf. Prior to his death, Martino recanted to a Newsday reporter and admitted he had spread lies about Oswald to implicate him as a Castro agent.

Despite claims by all of the above, including your newest publicity client, it is not possible for Oswald to have been in Florida to make the purported approaches, at the times reported, due to his being demonstrably elsewhere at the time. This may suggest impersonation, but the likelier explanation is that you're being fed fantasy falsely labelled as fact.

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" !!

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.

Now it gets very clear why certain professionals avoid forums !! Why should anybody expose themselves to having their "chains pulled" by complete amateurs ??

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.

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 !!

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 !!

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.

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 !!"

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".

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.

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 !!

GPH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert wrote (in part):

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

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

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

Yes, you're the first person to do Hemming's latest bidding. That and a dollar will buy you a coffee. Let us assume that Hemming knew the IDs of L&A all along. Why did he wait until Mellen's book was being printed to 'scoop' her on this point? Surely it wasn't life-threatening to Hemming to put this into the public domain at any prior point in the past 40-plus years? This is merely the latest instance in which Hemming has decided to insinuate himself into an historical circumstance, and claim knowledge that may or may not be true. Your uncritical acceptance of whatever he utters is very useful to him in this.

Let's have a quick look back at what Hemming told Weberman some years back:

"You want the real story behind the Odio incident? She was a suspected Castro agent. Her father was a basically a hostage in a Cuban prison who plotted against Castro with Veciana. You know why you are not given a security clearance if you have relatives behind the Iron Curtain? She's considered a Socialist, so she's on the wrong side. To reinforce that, there's a potential that she's being blackmailed and she's working as a Castro agent..... I dealt with Manolo Ray. We could link up this dude with somebody that's already in the files. HUNT hated him for running the resistance against Batista. HUNT'S on Batista's side. This is the enemy, people who could have killed him while he was in Havana. They were killing people. Blowing up the sewer system and the telephone system. That xxxxed up his party routine. He probably felt insecure going to the local whorehouse. I know one of the guys who took OSWALD to Sylvia Odio. This was a setup to dirty-up OSWALD with suspected Castro agent Sylvia Odio. They'd build a file on her. Either they are building this guy's credibility to go kill Castro, or they've abandoned that, and said, 'xxxx that, we have to make this guy look like a Castro agent and have him do something serious in this country that's provocative.'"

According to Hemming's rather odd logic, it was necessary to taint Oswald with Ms. Odio, a purported Castro agent - despite the fact that her family had lost its holdings to Castro, that her father was in Castro's prison and her entire family worked to overthrow Castro by supporting the least fascist alternative, Manolo Ray. Yet this is the infallible source whose every utterance you believe to be gospel? Please, dear boy, do get a grip. It was not Oswald being tainted by Odio, but Odio's group JURE being tainted by Oswald prior to his date with infamy.

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

Given the long legacy of lies, distortions and logical contortions that have masqueraded as stunning new revelations over the past four decades, you seem far more hopeful than that history would justify. Whatever fear for his safety kept Hemming from speaking up for the past 40-ish years seems to have evaporated with the knowledge that an academic woman is brave enough to break this news to the world. 'Tis an oddly poetic twist that a man's man who refers to his detractors as "girls" has only located his gumption when a mere slip of a woman is about to demonstrate the very bravery he has declined to exemplify in the past.

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

I have also studied the case enough to know other things:

Sturgis and the Buchanan brothers made similar claims that LHO had tried to infiltrate their virile sounding International Anti-Communist Brigade, even writing articles on the topic in the Florida press. When asked by the FBI about this, Sturgis back-tracked and called it mere "speculation." You can file Hemming's identical claims under an identical heading.

John Martino and Nathaniel Weyl both depicted Oswald as a Castro agent bent upon infiltrating the patriotic anti-Castro movement on El Jefe's behalf. Prior to his death, Martino recanted to a Newsday reporter and admitted he had spread lies about Oswald to implicate him as a Castro agent.

Despite claims by all of the above, including your newest publicity client, it is not possible for Oswald to have been in Florida to make the purported approaches, at the times reported, due to his being demonstrably elsewhere at the time. This may suggest impersonation, but the likelier explanation is that you're being fed fantasy falsely labelled as fact.

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" !!

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.

Now it gets very clear why certain professionals avoid forums !! Why should anybody expose themselves to having their "chains pulled" by complete amateurs ??

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.

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 !!

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 !!

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.

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 !!"

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".

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.

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 !!

GPH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert wrote (in part):

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

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

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

Yes, you're the first person to do Hemming's latest bidding. That and a dollar will buy you a coffee. Let us assume that Hemming knew the IDs of L&A all along. Why did he wait until Mellen's book was being printed to 'scoop' her on this point? Surely it wasn't life-threatening to Hemming to put this into the public domain at any prior point in the past 40-plus years? This is merely the latest instance in which Hemming has decided to insinuate himself into an historical circumstance, and claim knowledge that may or may not be true. Your uncritical acceptance of whatever he utters is very useful to him in this.

Let's have a quick look back at what Hemming told Weberman some years back:

"You want the real story behind the Odio incident? She was a suspected Castro agent. Her father was a basically a hostage in a Cuban prison who plotted against Castro with Veciana. You know why you are not given a security clearance if you have relatives behind the Iron Curtain? She's considered a Socialist, so she's on the wrong side. To reinforce that, there's a potential that she's being blackmailed and she's working as a Castro agent..... I dealt with Manolo Ray. We could link up this dude with somebody that's already in the files. HUNT hated him for running the resistance against Batista. HUNT'S on Batista's side. This is the enemy, people who could have killed him while he was in Havana. They were killing people. Blowing up the sewer system and the telephone system. That xxxxed up his party routine. He probably felt insecure going to the local whorehouse. I know one of the guys who took OSWALD to Sylvia Odio. This was a setup to dirty-up OSWALD with suspected Castro agent Sylvia Odio. They'd build a file on her. Either they are building this guy's credibility to go kill Castro, or they've abandoned that, and said, 'xxxx that, we have to make this guy look like a Castro agent and have him do something serious in this country that's provocative.'"

According to Hemming's rather odd logic, it was necessary to taint Oswald with Ms. Odio, a purported Castro agent - despite the fact that her family had lost its holdings to Castro, that her father was in Castro's prison and her entire family worked to overthrow Castro by supporting the least fascist alternative, Manolo Ray. Yet this is the infallible source whose every utterance you believe to be gospel? Please, dear boy, do get a grip. It was not Oswald being tainted by Odio, but Odio's group JURE being tainted by Oswald prior to his date with infamy.

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

Given the long legacy of lies, distortions and logical contortions that have masqueraded as stunning new revelations over the past four decades, you seem far more hopeful than that history would justify. Whatever fear for his safety kept Hemming from speaking up for the past 40-ish years seems to have evaporated with the knowledge that an academic woman is brave enough to break this news to the world. 'Tis an oddly poetic twist that a man's man who refers to his detractors as "girls" has only located his gumption when a mere slip of a woman is about to demonstrate the very bravery he has declined to exemplify in the past.

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

I have also studied the case enough to know other things:

Sturgis and the Buchanan brothers made similar claims that LHO had tried to infiltrate their virile sounding International Anti-Communist Brigade, even writing articles on the topic in the Florida press. When asked by the FBI about this, Sturgis back-tracked and called it mere "speculation." You can file Hemming's identical claims under an identical heading.

John Martino and Nathaniel Weyl both depicted Oswald as a Castro agent bent upon infiltrating the patriotic anti-Castro movement on El Jefe's behalf. Prior to his death, Martino recanted to a Newsday reporter and admitted he had spread lies about Oswald to implicate him as a Castro agent.

Despite claims by all of the above, including your newest publicity client, it is not possible for Oswald to have been in Florida to make the purported approaches, at the times reported, due to his being demonstrably elsewhere at the time. This may suggest impersonation, but the likelier explanation is that you're being fed fantasy falsely labelled as fact.

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" !!

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.

Now it gets very clear why certain professionals avoid forums !! Why should anybody expose themselves to having their "chains pulled" by complete amateurs ??

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.

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 !!

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 !!

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.

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 !!"

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".

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.

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 !!

GPH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert wrote (in part):

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

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

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

Yes, you're the first person to do Hemming's latest bidding. That and a dollar will buy you a coffee. Let us assume that Hemming knew the IDs of L&A all along. Why did he wait until Mellen's book was being printed to 'scoop' her on this point? Surely it wasn't life-threatening to Hemming to put this into the public domain at any prior point in the past 40-plus years? This is merely the latest instance in which Hemming has decided to insinuate himself into an historical circumstance, and claim knowledge that may or may not be true. Your uncritical acceptance of whatever he utters is very useful to him in this.

Let's have a quick look back at what Hemming told Weberman some years back:

"You want the real story behind the Odio incident? She was a suspected Castro agent. Her father was a basically a hostage in a Cuban prison who plotted against Castro with Veciana. You know why you are not given a security clearance if you have relatives behind the Iron Curtain? She's considered a Socialist, so she's on the wrong side. To reinforce that, there's a potential that she's being blackmailed and she's working as a Castro agent..... I dealt with Manolo Ray. We could link up this dude with somebody that's already in the files. HUNT hated him for running the resistance against Batista. HUNT'S on Batista's side. This is the enemy, people who could have killed him while he was in Havana. They were killing people. Blowing up the sewer system and the telephone system. That xxxxed up his party routine. He probably felt insecure going to the local whorehouse. I know one of the guys who took OSWALD to Sylvia Odio. This was a setup to dirty-up OSWALD with suspected Castro agent Sylvia Odio. They'd build a file on her. Either they are building this guy's credibility to go kill Castro, or they've abandoned that, and said, 'xxxx that, we have to make this guy look like a Castro agent and have him do something serious in this country that's provocative.'"

According to Hemming's rather odd logic, it was necessary to taint Oswald with Ms. Odio, a purported Castro agent - despite the fact that her family had lost its holdings to Castro, that her father was in Castro's prison and her entire family worked to overthrow Castro by supporting the least fascist alternative, Manolo Ray. Yet this is the infallible source whose every utterance you believe to be gospel? Please, dear boy, do get a grip. It was not Oswald being tainted by Odio, but Odio's group JURE being tainted by Oswald prior to his date with infamy.

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

Given the long legacy of lies, distortions and logical contortions that have masqueraded as stunning new revelations over the past four decades, you seem far more hopeful than that history would justify. Whatever fear for his safety kept Hemming from speaking up for the past 40-ish years seems to have evaporated with the knowledge that an academic woman is brave enough to break this news to the world. 'Tis an oddly poetic twist that a man's man who refers to his detractors as "girls" has only located his gumption when a mere slip of a woman is about to demonstrate the very bravery he has declined to exemplify in the past.

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

I have also studied the case enough to know other things:

Sturgis and the Buchanan brothers made similar claims that LHO had tried to infiltrate their virile sounding International Anti-Communist Brigade, even writing articles on the topic in the Florida press. When asked by the FBI about this, Sturgis back-tracked and called it mere "speculation." You can file Hemming's identical claims under an identical heading.

John Martino and Nathaniel Weyl both depicted Oswald as a Castro agent bent upon infiltrating the patriotic anti-Castro movement on El Jefe's behalf. Prior to his death, Martino recanted to a Newsday reporter and admitted he had spread lies about Oswald to implicate him as a Castro agent.

Despite claims by all of the above, including your newest publicity client, it is not possible for Oswald to have been in Florida to make the purported approaches, at the times reported, due to his being demonstrably elsewhere at the time. This may suggest impersonation, but the likelier explanation is that you're being fed fantasy falsely labelled as fact.

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" !!

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.

Now it gets very clear why certain professionals avoid forums !! Why should anybody expose themselves to having their "chains pulled" by complete amateurs ??

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.

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 !!

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 !!

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.

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 !!"

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".

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.

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 !!

GPH

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was intrigued by Gerry's statement that it was he who introduced Russo to "Angelo" and dug up Russo's book to see the results of this meeting.

According to Russo, Angelo told him that he accompanied RFK on more than one occasion to the home of Norman Rothman, a mobster with ties to Lansky. According to Russo, Rothman himself told the HSCA he met with Kennedy aides within the White House and discussed killing Castro in Kennedy's office. And yet Rothman seems to have left out that he'd met with Kennedy himself in Florida! Hmmm... Why would he leave this out? Wouldn't it bolster his credibility if he could show he'd actually met with RFK, at a time when RFK was actually in Florida? I'm sorry but I think Russo is wrong to cite Angelo's story as support for Rothman's story. The two stories are, if anything, in conflict.

I believe Angelo's story even less now. I suspect he threw in the Rothman bit to give the Kennedy-hating Russo his money's worth.

I believe Angelo's story even less now. I suspect he threw in the Rothman bit to give the Kennedy-hating Russo his money's worth.

Pat:

Many years back I travelled to Florida, in part to learn what I could about an overlapping crime. This was a night-time bank heist in my own beloved Canada, the largest bank job in the country's history up to that point in time. Along with cash and the contents of safe deposit boxes, the cunning burglars made off with bearer bonds and securities that then ended up in the hands of a number of US fences. Some were found in the possession of a one-time Canadian pilot named Browder [who had collaborated with Jack Ruby on a massive failed (?) scheme to import a variety of Italian weapons]. Others were traced to Norman Rothman, who pleaded not guilty to the consequent charges because he insisted that the use of these stolen securities was in furtherance of a government program against Castro.

I located two people who knew "Normie" pretty well; one a sometime business associate, the other a lifelong friend/acquaintance. I asked them point blank if Rothman's use of the stolen securities was "legit" [as in, approved by higher authorities in the US government - if so why was he charged?] or whether he was trying to blackmail the government into dropping charges against him [ a la Rosselli] by making such claims in open court. Separately and quite independently, they both said that "Normie" would have claimed anything about anyone at any time if he felt it would further his own position. He was, in essence, born and raised without any moral compass and pursued only his self-interest. In other words, a perfect candidate for membership in the Mob. And, unfortunately, a perfect tool for intelligence purposes. [For those who still feel compelled to distinguish between CIA and the Mob.]

Bottom line: don't believe a word out of Rothman's mouth unless you can find concrete confirmation for his claims from a reputable source. Is Angelo that credible source? Is Russo trustworthy to report events accurately?

The milieu we're wading through is thick with liars and conmen. Trying to divine which of them is telling the truth [and if any truth is being told] is a daunting task, and not made any easier by our admitted status as "amateurs."

Vis a vis GPH: A number of things have been stated here that are patently untrue. They are not big things [mistaken dates, incorrect persons, etc.] These may be the result of faulty memory all these years later. They may be the result of claiming personal knowledge, when it was instead 'received' knowledge. They may be mere [and minor] mistakes. But when one encounters such errors on smaller details, the larger details divulged should be scrutinized with great caution to avoid being sucked in.

Coupled with unsubstantiated, sweeping generalizations about Lippert, Martino, Cummings, Turner, Bohning, et al - from a man who has just openly admitted deliberately steering interested parties onto wild goose chases - doesn't bolster one's confidence.

Mr. Hemming,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was intrigued by Gerry's statement that it was he who introduced Russo to "Angelo" and dug up Russo's book to see the results of this meeting.

According to Russo, Angelo told him that he accompanied RFK on more than one occasion to the home of Norman Rothman, a mobster with ties to Lansky. According to Russo, Rothman himself told the HSCA he met with Kennedy aides within the White House and discussed killing Castro in Kennedy's office. And yet Rothman seems to have left out that he'd met with Kennedy himself in Florida! Hmmm... Why would he leave this out? Wouldn't it bolster his credibility if he could show he'd actually met with RFK, at a time when RFK was actually in Florida? I'm sorry but I think Russo is wrong to cite Angelo's story as support for Rothman's story. The two stories are, if anything, in conflict.

I believe Angelo's story even less now. I suspect he threw in the Rothman bit to give the Kennedy-hating Russo his money's worth.

I believe Angelo's story even less now. I suspect he threw in the Rothman bit to give the Kennedy-hating Russo his money's worth.

Pat:

Many years back I travelled to Florida, in part to learn what I could about an overlapping crime. This was a night-time bank heist in my own beloved Canada, the largest bank job in the country's history up to that point in time. Along with cash and the contents of safe deposit boxes, the cunning burglars made off with bearer bonds and securities that then ended up in the hands of a number of US fences. Some were found in the possession of a one-time Canadian pilot named Browder [who had collaborated with Jack Ruby on a massive failed (?) scheme to import a variety of Italian weapons]. Others were traced to Norman Rothman, who pleaded not guilty to the consequent charges because he insisted that the use of these stolen securities was in furtherance of a government program against Castro.

I located two people who knew "Normie" pretty well; one a sometime business associate, the other a lifelong friend/acquaintance. I asked them point blank if Rothman's use of the stolen securities was "legit" [as in, approved by higher authorities in the US government - if so why was he charged?] or whether he was trying to blackmail the government into dropping charges against him [ a la Rosselli] by making such claims in open court. Separately and quite independently, they both said that "Normie" would have claimed anything about anyone at any time if he felt it would further his own position. He was, in essence, born and raised without any moral compass and pursued only his self-interest. In other words, a perfect candidate for membership in the Mob. And, unfortunately, a perfect tool for intelligence purposes. [For those who still feel compelled to distinguish between CIA and the Mob.]

Bottom line: don't believe a word out of Rothman's mouth unless you can find concrete confirmation for his claims from a reputable source. Is Angelo that credible source? Is Russo trustworthy to report events accurately?

The milieu we're wading through is thick with liars and conmen. Trying to divine which of them is telling the truth [and if any truth is being told] is a daunting task, and not made any easier by our admitted status as "amateurs."

Vis a vis GPH: A number of things have been stated here that are patently untrue. They are not big things [mistaken dates, incorrect persons, etc.] These may be the result of faulty memory all these years later. They may be the result of claiming personal knowledge, when it was instead 'received' knowledge. They may be mere [and minor] mistakes. But when one encounters such errors on smaller details, the larger details divulged should be scrutinized with great caution to avoid being sucked in.

Coupled with unsubstantiated, sweeping generalizations about Lippert, Martino, Cummings, Turner, Bohning, et al - from a man who has just openly admitted deliberately steering interested parties onto wild goose chases - doesn't bolster one's confidence.

Mr. Hemming,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Mr. Gratz, I believe your contribution of Amaury Mergado's comments on this thread are perhaps more significant than anything you have ever posted prior to this. No distortions, no 'does this or does this not prove' lawyering....just the actual words, with minimal comments.

It's a beautiful thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the comment much, Mark. Perhaps you have picked up that over the last month or two my respect for your posts has increased.

I have said several times that some of my best friends have been people from opposite ends of the political spectrum. I sometimes think a problem with forums like this is that even with a picture of other members, it is far easier to get nasty, so to speak, than if you were sitting down in a bar or restaurant fiercely debating the same issue but face-to-face.

On a more substantive side, I agree with you that the participation of Amaury Murgado is certainly welcome and the confirmation that Oswald was indeed at Odio's (so who was in Mexico City?) and that Oswald was with Odio when Murgado got there, as well as Murgado's belief that Oswald was an FBI informant, are of EXTREME importance and may very well advance the investigation.

Does not this thread in and of itself demolish "Case Closed" as well as Bugliosi's expected book? I certainly think so. I also think if a new inquiry would be had, Sylvia Odio would be close to the top of my list. Why does the story attributed to her differ so greatly from Mr. Murgado's?

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am pleased to announce that Angel Murgado’s son, Amaury Murgado, has joined the Forum. I have been in contact with him by email recently and I have been impressed by his understanding of these events. I am looking forward to reading his postings.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5332

Mr. Murgado;

My sincere appreciation to your father as well as to yourself for the effort to set the record straight on those aspects of which your father had direct knowledge.

Your statements as regards the somewhat misrepresentation of what your father has stated, is hardly unusual. This has of course been the manner in which many previous writers have attempted to "sell" their viewpoint, and in so doing, have made many of those who possess factual knowledge, reluctant to speak with anyone.

That your father, and others, obviously recognized that LHO was "playing his own game" is understandable.

Unfortunately, most who discuss this subject have ZERO experience in such "games", and therefore base their perceptions on the James Bond and RAMBO movies in which they have obviously over-dosed.

Without doubt, your father, not unlike Gerry Hemming, is in possession of knowledge/facts, which have bearing and are a part of the "Key" to understanding whom the "gamemaster" of LHO actually was.

Those who recognize LHO for what he was and for what he was up to, easily recognize his attempt to drag into this issue, virtually everyone that he could associate himself with.

For these reasons, it is my sincere hope that in the name of an accurate "final history", that your father will continue to share with all his knowledge and experiences of these times.

With appreciation,

Tom Purvis

P.S. John, you can keep referring to LHO as an "FBI Agent" from now until forever. This will not make it so.

An "Agent" is a full time employee of the Federal Government, of which, rest assured, LHO was NOT.

Secondly, LHO may or may not have been an "informant", and since there are those "unsolicited" informants as well as those "cultured" informants, the "informant status" is, from all appearance merely another of the "games" of LHO to smear his track/trail over a wide area.

Perhaps you, and others, should fully examine the "antics" which LHO went through in order to "smear" the smell on the FBI in New Orleans, when they basically ignored his handing out of FPCC fliers at the dock when the US Navy put in there.

(poor actors frequently ruin the play)

Link to post
Share on other sites
P.S. John, you can keep referring to LHO as an "FBI Agent" from now until forever. This will not make it so.

An "Agent" is a full time employee of the Federal Government, of which, rest assured, LHO was NOT.

Is it true that someone can only be a full-time FBI undercover agent? I remember William Sullivan once telling J. Edgar Hoover that there were more undercover FBI agents in the American Communist Party than there was actual committed members. I expect the same was true of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. In fact, the whole thing could have been what the British intelligence agencies call a "honey trap".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...