Angel Murgado (Angelo Kennedy)

[Tim Gratz]

Ron was certainly correct that the implications of Mr. Murgado's story are as follows:

1. There were two Oswalds; or

2. There was an oswald impersonator (either in Mexico City or possibly at Odio's (since Mr. Murgado states that he recognized oswald only from the newspaper articles of his activities in Mexico City arguably the "Oswald" at Odio's could have been the imposter--perhaps Mr. murgado can comment on this possibility); or

3. Oswald had transportation help to Mexico City.

And the other important conclusion is that Odio knew Oswald or the Oswald impersonator in Dallas.

The plot, as they say, thickens.

[Guest Matt Allison]

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

NOT when it is safe for her, but when it is safe for all previously connected to her, here and abroad -- she will recant and denounce the abuse put to this courageous her repeatedly by entities of the U.S. and other foreign governments.

_______________________________________

There is obviously the dilemma that either Angelo or Odio is not describing the day as it actually happened.

Being that DeTorres got in front of Congress and lied (even after massive restrictions were put in front of investigators) it's difficult to believe that Odio, who was genuinely afraid and received no protection from the intelligence agencies- but was willing to testify, is the keeper of the secrets.

PS: cheers to GPH, for it is he that brought us to this thread. No disrespect to Joan Mellen.

Edited November 8, 2005 by Matt Allison

[Tim Gratz]

Totally agree with Matt's last comment.

The Murgado story is, in my opinion, one of the most important developments in the case in forty years, and it came out because of Gerry Hemming.

Of course we also need to thank Mr. Murgado and his son. Greatly appreciation the son's willingess to post his father's comments here.

Another important development, again thanks to Gerry, is the revelation of who was the Mexico City mystery man (discussed here on another thread).

Edited November 8, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Pat Speer]

Totally agree with Matt's last comment.

The Murgado story is, in my opinion, one of the most important developments in the case in forty years, and it came out because of Gerry Hemming.

Of course we also need to thank Mr. Murgado and his son. Greatly appreciation the son's willingess to post his father's comments here.

Another important development, again thanks to Gerry, is the revelation of who was the Mexico City mystery man (discussed here on another thread).

Tim, if you're trying to turn Gerry into a Republican, I suspect you'll have to kiss a bit more fanny than that.

As to Gerry's last post, did I get that right? Gerry, are you saying that Oswald was dropped off in Merida by Rorke/Sullivan, and that Mann and Scott knew about it?? If so, when was this uncovered? Before or after the assassination? Since Mann was the top man in the U.S. Government pushing for the Castro did it scenario, does this mean Mann assumed Rorke and Sullivan were sold out by Oswald and killed by Castro's forces? What, if any, is the connection between the disappearance of the Rorke/Sullivan flight and the Kennedy assassination?

Big questions I know. Answers of all shapes and sizes appreciated.

[Guest Amaury Murgado]

Email sent to John Simkin on 4th November, 2005

My name is Amaury Murgado and I am, who you refer to as "Angelo Murgado," oldest son. I was surfing the web about 5 months ago and noticed an old family friend, Gerry Hemming had mentioned my father's name. Needless to say, it has been an interesting and eye opening experience, ever since. There are a few things I would like to correct if I may, since dad has now made SPARTACUS, in addition to the Education Forum...I use both in my research of The Bay of Pigs Invasion.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmurgado.htm

1. My father's name is Angelo Kennedy. Prior to his name change, it was Angel Murgado. Feel free to use either or but your current combination is not correct.

2. "By January 1963, Artime and other exile leaders had a meeting with Robert Kennedy in New Hampshire. Murgado claims that later that year Kennedy asked him to travel to New Orleans in order to investigate "Castro's agents, double agents, and Cubans working for the C.I.A." While on this mission, Murgado met Lee Harvey Oswald who was apparently working as an undercover FBI agent."

As I tried explaining to Professor Mellen, words have meaning. Met, is a very strong word in this paragraph. My father has for lack of a better word, made me his representative, so I speak for him when I write this. When my father went to meet with Silvia, he has assured me that Oswald was already in the apartment. The only reason Oswald was known to my father was the same way most of New Orleans new him...through the newspaper and other media outlets. Oswald if you remember was working very hard at getting himself noticed. My father says he never even shock hands with Oswald nor did he speak with him as his business was with Sylvia. At no time did my father have any type of association with Oswald besides this brief encounter. Why is Sylvia's story different? I can't speak for her. But lets agree that its a safe bet that if Oswald did kill JFK, would you admit to having him in your apartment?

As to Professor Mellen's article in The Citizen, though I have the utmost respect for her as a professor and noted author, I want to make one thing clear. During her interview with my father, she took no notes, nor did she record any conversations. Present at the interview were Gerry Hemming and his son. I missed her by an hour as I had to return home. I spoke with her on the phone and we talked several times. When I read the article, I immediately called her and discussed the possibility that she had misunderstood my father. She could not change the article but she was kind enough to change the contents of her book in this regard. I still would have liked to have seen a little more changed, because like I said before words do have meaning, but I have no control over her literary license. I remain friendly with her, wish her well, respect her opinions and hope to meet her in January at a book signing. I have not seen the book yet as I have not been sent a review copy (neither has my father) so I can not comment on the rest. I can say, it is a good bet, there will be a few more bumps in the book my father will probably disagree with. Because of this experience with misrepresentation, he will speak with no one nor offer any more interviews on the subject again. He had given David Talbot some phone interviews but stopped those as well. Mr. Talbot is writing a book on the Kennedy brothers and will be out next year. I was able to clear up some things for him and I believe since he did record all his conversations with my father, his book will be a more accurate portrayal of my father's words. Again, no disrespect to Professor Mellen intended.

The issues about RFK seeing pictures of Oswald are true in the sense that my father brought back various newspaper clippings about him and showed RFK. Professor Mellen is trying to make it sound that my father and RFK new exactly who Oswald was and what he was doing. This is a very bad misrepresentation of the facts. Again, at that time, RFK new about Oswald the same way others did, by the noise he was making. No cloak and dagger stuff here sorry to say. Oswald was identified at some point as working with the FBI in some capacity or another, so my father and his team didn't give him a second thought. When Oswald was said to have killed JFK, my father was as surprised as anyone, and equally as sick. My father is one of the good guys. My father was actually trying to help RFK prevent what eventually happened. He was trying to keep tabs on renegades. Please recall, there were many threats on JFK's life from all sectors...Cubans, the left, the right, and everything in-between. You must look at this in the historical perspective.

As to any of Gerry Hemming's comments, my father and him go way back and my father says he is the real John Wayne. My father confirmed that he saved Gerry's life once. My father will never contradict Gerry, right or wrong. My father has never come forward except when Gerry has asked him to, hence the few limited interviews he has granted. Like it or not that's the way it is. They have been through too much together. I can tell you everyone is chasing their tales. They are looking at these issues in this current time frame. If you want to analyze this national tragedy, you have to look at it terms of the 1960's. What seems totally unrealistic today was common place then. Literally, it was a different world. Does my father know who killed JFK? No. No more than knowing the next winning lottery numbers.

I can't read through too much of the forum because I don't have the luxury of time. I work full time and attend graduate school. Though I respect everyone's opinions right or wrong, some of the things that are being written about my father are dead wrong. I served 22 years in the Army (and Army Reserve) and retired an E-8/Master Sergeant in 1999. I held a Top Secret security clearance and my father still wouldn't talk to me. Guess what? I don't talk to him about the things I did either. Its called national security and the oath and papers you sign when working for Uncle Sam. Things in the black stay there. What you say might have a domino effect and get others killed. Important assets compromised. Innocent people get sacrificed. Its the nature of the business, you just don't talk unless you have the need to know. If that upsets what Gerry fondly calls "wanna bees," they'll get over it.

I have no problem opening a dialogue with you or members of the Education Forum to a limited extent, but you must understand one thing. My father is out of the loop. For the most part what has been written by Professor Mellen and about to be written by Mr. Talbot are it. I will address corrections to any misrepresentations of my father's words, but it ends there. I have found in the last five months that people aren't searching for the truth; they are trying to promote and justify their personal agendas.

[John Simkin]

Thank you for providing this information about your father. I will use it to update my page on him. My only concern is to get the truth into the public domain. Why don’t you join the JFK Forum? You will then be able to post your own account of this story.

[Guest Amaury Murgado]

Email sent to John Simkin on 6th November, 2005

I appreciate your timely response and your kindness. I appreciate the search for truth because once found, you only have to deal with the issues that surround it once. Lies, half-truths, and disinformation just perpetuate agendas. Unfortunately, as I said before, people hear what they want in furtherance of their goals and objectives.

I will help you and the forum as much as I am able. Its not about me or my wishes; its about my father's. The problem that surrounds my father is that there isn't really anything to tell other than what I have informed you with regards to RFK, JFK and the assassination. He has never come forward for the security reasons I described in my last communication and that in the context of conspiracy theories, he has nothing to tell.; there are no hidden secrets.

After getting released from Castro's prison after, the Bay of Pigs Invasion, he was selected for his tenacity, dedication, and skills to be one of Manuel Artime's "lieutenants" for lack of a better word. Perhaps administrative assistant or "go to guy" is a better description. Certain members of the Brigade 2506 became close to the RFK, my father included. He spent many a weekeknd with RFK at his Virginia home. All the historical documents that have been released now shows us that there was a definite second front and effort planned against Cuba. My father helped with that. He was invloved with Mongoose. He was not a principal in the way that Artime was, but none the less was one of Artime's right hand men, and was part of all Artime activities with regard to RFK and the Whitehouse. Artime and many of the historical figures of the day used to come to my house when I was a little boy. After my parents in 1968, my father was in and out of my life depending on what he was doing for the government. He even served a tour of duty with the Frist Cavalry Division.

My father's mission for RFK was fact finding and keeping tabs on any renegades from the Cuban side that might be planning to do harm to the president. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to note that when a group of Cubans who are upset at the president leave Florida and head to New Orleans they might bear watching. That is how my father ended up in the Sylvia incident. It was about renegades not Oswald. Oswald at the time was considered a clown making a show and tied in with the FBI as some type of informant. That he was in Sylvia's apartment, in the context that Oswald was helping the FBI gather information of Cuban revolutionary groups, is not far fetched. Sylvia who obviously was doing her own work for I will assume "other intelligence agencies" would not ever put forth she was with Oswald for any reason. That would compromise what she was doing and for whom. What she did and why I have no clue. But, there is nothing more to my father's visit to Sylvia, on his part. That other things that may have been going on, were not inclusive of my father nor did he have any knowledge of the events so described. In his mind, he was helping RFK protect JFK. There really isn't any story past that. People can reflect, surmise, guess, speculate, attack, and declare all they want, they will always come short because the truth is there, they just don't want to accept it. I believe the build up of the Angelo and Leupoldo connection over the past 40 some odd years will blind researchers because they have a false sense of expectation. There is a coverup here but not on my father's part. It is a coverup by the inteligence community with regards to their failures similar to 911 and Iraq. The fears of WWIII must have been looming also. Better to nail Oswald and get it over with and let the issue die.

As to me, I registered on the forum last night as "amur." Perhaps that's an error and should change it to my full name. Amur is what I use for my email at work, there was no attempt to conceal myself, it was just what I am used to. I can always change it. As you can see from my personal email, it contains my full name, so the clandestine aspect of my login name is mute.

I will address some of the issues you bring up in future communication. As I said before I am quite limited in time because of work and graduate school. I have no problem sending you a picture of me for the forum, a bio on me, corrections for Spartacus, and whatever my father says I can give out about him. Please do not expect much in that regard. I have some business today that needs attending but I will make every effort to get you at least some of this information by weekend's end.

For now, I will take you for your word that you are searching for the truth and that you are an honorable man. I will hold that assumption until you show me otherwise. One of the credos I live by is "Facta non Verba" which is Latin for Deeds not Words. Talk is cheap; I judge a man by what he does not what he says.

[John Simkin]

I have a few questions for your father.

(1) When and where was your father born?

(2) When did he arrive in the United States?

(3) When did he join the Bay of Pigs operation.

(4) Was he captured?

(5) If so, what happened to him?

(6) When did your father first meet Robert Kennedy?

(7) What instructions did he give your father concerning his investigations in New Orleans.

(8) Was he investigating anti or pro Castro Cubans?

(9) Did the rumors of assassination plots involve both of these groups.

(10) At what stage did your father realize that Oswald was a FBI agent?

(11) Why did your father visit Silvia Odio?

(12) Did your father go to Silvia's apartment with Bernardo de Torres?

(13) You say in your email " The only reason Oswald was known to my father was the same way most of New Orleans new him...through the newspaper and other media outlets. Oswald if you remember was working very hard at getting himself noticed. Did your father begin to investigate Oswald when his activities began to appear in the newspapers?

(14) If Oswald was an undercover FBI agent, why was he attempting to draw so much attention towards himself?

(15) You also said: "But lets agree that its a safe bet that if Oswald did kill JFK, would you admit to having him in your apartment."

(16) You say in your email: "My father's mission for RFK was fact finding and keeping tabs on any renegades from the Cuban side that might be planning to do harm to the president. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to note that when a group of Cubans who are upset at the president leave Florida and head to New Orleans they might bear watching." Why did your father not come forward after the assassination of JFK? This information might have helped track down the killers of JFK.

(17) How did Robert Kennedy react to the news that your father had been in contact with Oswald before the assassination. Did he want your father to give this information to the FBI?

(18) Is it possible to provide some biographical information on your father since 1963?

[Guest Amaury Murgado]

Please remember the information and the statements I have provided you thus far. I will answer you, as best I can, in that framework. These answers reflect a conversation with my father on 11-6-5.

John Simkin: When and where was your father born?

Amaury Murgado: Havana , Cuba 10-2-39.

John Simkin: When did he arrive in the United States?

Amaury Murgado: December 1956.

John Simkin: When did he join the Bay of Pigs operation.

Amaury Murgado: February 1961, Brigade 2506 Serial Number 3266. Paratrooper Battalion, Company A, HQ's Radio Operator.

John Simkin: Was he captured?

Amaury Murgado: 21-22 April (one of the last ones) captured in full paratrooper uniform, never got out of it like others did. He maintained his soldier status throughout.

John Simkin: If so, what happened to him?

Amaury Murgado: He became POW at Pricenpe Castle. On the day the Brigade was getting ready to leave after the negotiations for their release succeeded, my father and eight others were taken to the airport to say goodbye to the Brigade as a form of punishment as they were slotted for execution and would never see them again. While at the airport, the Cuban government changed there execution to 30 years hard labor. Eventually that day, they were the last nine to leave.

John Simkin: When did your father first meet Robert Kennedy?

Amaury Murgado: No answer.

John Simkin: What instructions did he give your father concerning his investigations in New Orleans.

Amaury Murgado: RFK never gave any instruction to my father on the subject. Since my father and Artime were working with RFK, my father pitched the idea to RFK and he allowed it. My father was concerned that some brigade hotheads or other upset Cubans with the Bay of Pigs fiasco might do something stupid, so he was given authority to conduct an independent investigation and keep RFK informed. These meetings were generally at RFK's West Palm Beach home, with no other people around except Artime who dad says would be on the phone most of the time.

John Simkin: Was he investigating anti or pro Castro Cubans?

Amaury Murgado: My father's idea revolved around keeping tabs on anti-Castro hot heads that were blaming JFK for the bay of Pigs fiasco. This was not a massive intelligence operation, just a low key attempt by my father. His job was just anti-Castro hotheads with Brigade 2506 ties. What other people were doing and why were of no concern to him. (Under compartmentalization, only those in the need to know do...).

John Simkin: Did the rumors of assassination plots involve both of these groups.

Amaury Murgado: My father had no specific information on anything in particular. He just wanted to keeps tabs on possible renegade activity.

John Simkin: At what stage did your father realize that Oswald was a FBI agent?

Amaury Murgado: My father's only comment was he developed sources that advised him that Oswald was with the FBI as an informant. This information was passed on to RFK as with all information garnished from my father's activities. RFK was always briefed by my father personally. Artime was always with them but would not always attend the briefings. He will not discuss these sources or anything further on the topic.

John Simkin: Why did your father visit Silvia Odio?

Amaury Murgado: My father new Silvia socially in Miami. It always seems that everyone knows everyone from Cuba. His investigation led to some questions that Sylvia might help him with. My father says all the things written about the Sylvia incident are bogus. Oswald was inside the apartment when he and Benny arrived. The why's and who's for the perpetuation of Sylvia's disinformation are not part of my father's involvement and are for someone else to answer.

John Simkin: Did your father go to Silvia's apartment with Bernardo de Torres?

Amaury Murgado: Yes. At the time Benny was an associate of my father but not a key player with RFK/Artime. My father used to take him on minor assignments to help out. On this particular day, my father took Benny along. He just accompanied my father to see Sylvia. As to the rest of the story, my father says it didn't happen. Again, what and why the Odio Incident keeps perpetuating itself in the form it does is for someone else to answer. If I remember correctly, there is a body of information out there that says Sylvia was seen with Oswald several times. I mentioned this to Professor Mellen and she had trouble accepting this. She had trouble with many of the things I brought up to her about her Key West article. Some of the items in her book will differ with my father's comments because as I have said before, she did not take notes nor tape record any of her conversations with my father. I am sure her writing is not malicious, but not everything she writes can be attributed to my father).

John Simkin: You say in your email " The only reason Oswald was known to my father was the same way most of New Orleans new him...through the newspaper and other media outlets. Oswald if you remember was working very hard at getting himself noticed. Did your father begin to investigate Oswald when his activities began to appear in the newspapers?

Amaury Murgado: Oswald was not part of my father's task. My father was concentrating on the Cuban renegades. He only brought the information back to RFK as background and advised RFK that Oswald was an FBI informant. It was never more than just that at the time. Obviously after the assassination, it was quite a shock to learn about Oswald.

John Simkin: If Oswald was an undercover FBI agent, why was he attempting to draw so much attention towards himself?

Amaury Murgado: That question has to be answered by someone else. Oswald was not part of my father's assignment.

John Simkin: You also said: "But lets agree that its a safe bet that if Oswald did kill JFK, would you admit to having him in your apartment." However, why would she also add the two mysterious Cubans to the story? Why not simply

tell the FBI you were mistaken when you had the chance and it was Hall and Howard etc. Or why try and take it all to the HSCA a few years later. Why keep associating the two Cubans with your visitor. Which perhaps takes us back to the why of the "call back". Clearly Sylvia had the chance to recant and back out of this many times and she did not.

Amaury Murgado: That is not a question for my father but for Sylvia.

John Simkin: You say in your email: "My father's mission for RFK was fact finding and keeping tabs on any renegades from the Cuban side that might be planning to do harm to the president. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to note that when a group of Cubans who are upset at the president leave Florida and head to New Orleans they might bear watching. Why did your father not come forward after the assassination of JFK? This information might have helped track down the killers of JFK.

Amaury Murgado: Come forward with what and to whom? My father was already working with RFK at the time...RFK was always briefed and had all the information. Remember prior to the assassination Oswald was considered working with the FBI in some type of capacity. After the assassination, RFK and others choose to squash the investigation and made sure it concluded Oswald acted alone. RFK was his brother's keeper (my father says that all the time). This is all historical record now with the subsequent release of classified documents.

Why would my father come forward to anyone else? RFK was the Attorney General of the United States, technically with regards to law enforcement, RFK was the highest authority in the land at the time. Why call the FBI when Oswald was already known to them? So who else is left to report to? Regardless of what is floating out there now, my father did his job the way it needed to be done at the time. He didn't need to come forward because he already had.

I read this to my father, which was part of an answer to Mr. Gratz. My father said it would suffice as his answer to your question.

John Simkin: How did Robert Kennedy react to the news that your father had been in contact with Oswald before the assassination. Did he want your father to give this information to the FBI?

Amaury Murgado: My dad tells me that after the assassination, RFK was in deep shock. RFK did not make contact with my father and Artime until about 2 or 2.5 months later. It was clear at this meeting that no one had any answers. It was at this final meeting in West Palm Beach that my father and RFK last spoke. RFK told my father that it was over and done (meaning what they had been working on). That ended my father's involvement directly with RFK. As said before, there was no reason to tell anyone anything, they already knew.

John Simkin: Is it possible to provide some biographical information on your father since 1963?

Amaury Murgado: My father thank you for your interest but declines to answer. I can tell you as his son, he went on to do many things for and on behalf of the Brigade such as form an AMVETS post and secure that the Brigade members are considered as veterans of the US Armed Forces. He also participated in trying to get back the bodies of slain Brigade members brought back from Cuba.

I hope this fulfills your request for information. I am glad my father choose to answer more in depth. I do have one change in that in an prior email I mentioned that my father went to Virginia to meet with RFK. I was mistaken. He either met in Washington (2-3 times) or in RFK's West Palm Beach home. I apologize for any inconvenience this has caused.

[Gerry Hemming]

Totally agree with Matt's last comment.

The Murgado story is, in my opinion, one of the most important developments in the case in forty years, and it came out because of Gerry Hemming.

Of course we also need to thank Mr. Murgado and his son. Greatly appreciation the son's willingess to post his father's comments here.

Another important development, again thanks to Gerry, is the revelation of who was the Mexico City mystery man (discussed here on another thread).

Tim, if you're trying to turn Gerry into a Republican, I suspect you'll have to kiss a bit more fanny than that.

As to Gerry's last post, did I get that right? Gerry, are you saying that Oswald was dropped off in Merida by Rorke/Sullivan, and that Mann and Scott knew about it?? If so, when was this uncovered? Before or after the assassination? Since Mann was the top man in the U.S. Government pushing for the Castro did it scenario, does this mean Mann assumed Rorke and Sullivan were sold out by Oswald and killed by Castro's forces? What, if any, is the connection between the disappearance of the Rorke/Sullivan flight and the Kennedy assassination?

Big questions I know. Answers of all shapes and sizes appreciated.

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

Pat:

It is unfortunate that virtual laurels and flowers are being cast in my path at this time, and moreover; that some are coming via private e-mails and telephone calls from those very family members, including kids and grandkids of people who paid with their lives while seeking some of the Intel which has emerged on these matters over the last 40+ years.

I will NOT be a party to "throwing-it-back-in-their-faces" tactics against those who have challenged me, questioned my veracity, motives, personal agenda, etc. !! Be they witting or unwitting agent provacateurs [Trolls?], or just the disagreeable kind of folks present in the very FEW free and open societies on this planet. No one should treat ANY "information" as "Actionable Intelligence" until it has been put to a more complete analysis -- or as Tom Purvis put it (paraphrasing): "...Information is NOT Intel until it has been put to through many necessary steps which prove its verity..." [Peer review is oftentimes used].

Over the years I frequently annoyed Congress-persons (and their staff & investigators); military folks; Intel folks; reporters, authors, writers, scriveners and scribblers -- by my continual referral to "WE". A few would demand: "....Just who the hell are these WE ??!!" Oftentimes, if I then did respond, I would simply state that I am not the "Lone Ranger" in this matter, many others may eventually be credited; but now, if there is to be any faulting -- I stand alone as the principal if anything falls short or goes wrong !!

When Dick Russell's Argosy Magazine article appeared during early 1976 titled as: "CIA man [agent?]- whatever]..Tells All...!!" I really got it from the Cubans [especially those former Rebel Army warriors] who had for years heard my bitter denunciations of the CIA, and many other government entities.

"...So...my Gringo amigo...you were CIA all along...just as our own "Company" case officers told us you were, but we argued against them....and now it is clear that you were decieving us all along...!!"

Nevertheless, the CIA hasn't hesitated [via FOIA/PA] to "disgorge" dozens of documents which state that I [and WE] consistently claimed "affiliation with KU/BARK" -- something that if true; would surely have resulted in our deaths at the hands of very bitter and extremely dangerous individuals and entities !!

WE had the privilege and honor of getting the finances, arms, explosives, weapons, and maritime equipment for Tony Cuesta, Ramon Font, Bayo, "Lilo" et al. during the "Missile Crisis" of '62. Senior warrior Santiago Alvarez [along with his son and colleagues) supplied the "Alisan" as mother ship. Our initial agreement was that we would NOT "heat-up" the north coast of Cuba by sending in "raider-mission" commandos, as this would interfer with our "commercial-bartering Ops" with Fidel's fishermen, coast guard, borderguards, and militia. Worse, it would provide substance for Castro's increased demands for sophisticated patrol vessels.

[As expected, Cuba received more P-4 & P-6 MTBs (Motor-Torpedo-Boats) including the fearsome "Ossa" MTBs armed with "Styx" surface to surface missiles] which were falsely alleged to have been used by the North Vietnamese during the "Tonkin Gulf" attack?? of August, 1964 against the DDEs Maddox & Turner Joy.

[i will provide a not widely known version of the "Tonkin Gulf Incident" on that dedicated thread in the near term]

Alfa [or Alpha] 66 was organized during the summer of 1962 at a place near San Juan, Puerto Rico, and this was as a result of Tony Cuesta et al. having left the CIA subchaser "Tejana II" and commenced organizing an experienced commando group. Tony Veciana [one of 66 exiled Cubans & Americans], including former Rebel Army Major Eloy Gutierrez Menoyo, et al. were major players. Without Cuesta, Alpha-66 would have had to rely on warriors such as Roger Redondo, Rafael Huguet, Cmdte. Nazario Sargent,Cmdte. Armando Fleites, M.D., "Antonico" Rodriguez, Capt. Diego Medina, et al. -- which meant using mountain guerrilla combat vets who were less experienced in Maritime operations. [now styled as LCO's "Littoral Combat Operations"]

Later.

GPH

______________________________

[John Simkin]

The Murgado story is, in my opinion, one of the most important developments in the case in forty years, and it came out because of Gerry Hemming.

Of course we also need to thank Mr. Murgado and his son. Greatly appreciation the son's willingess to post his father's comments here.

Another important development, again thanks to Gerry, is the revelation of who was the Mexico City mystery man (discussed here on another thread).

You may be right but it could of course be part of a disinformation campaign. One thing is clear, either Angel Murgado or Sylvia Odio is lying.

If it is Odio who is lying, then it would appear that she might have been involved in some sort of conspiracy involving Lee Harvey Oswald.

However, if Odio told the truth, then Angel Murgado and Bernardo de Torres were involved in an attempt to link the Junta Revolucionario Cubana (JURE) with Oswald and the assassination of JFK. Odio’s organization was a socialist group opposed to Castro. It was much hated by right-wing figures like E. Howard Hunt who feared that JURE would gain control of Cuba after Castro was overthrown. JURE was of course also very unpopular with right-wing anti-Castro exiles like Bernardo de Torres.

If Odio is lying we have to ask the question why? Was she really part of a plot with Oswald to kill JFK?

If Murgado is lying we have to ask the question why? We have known for sometime that Bernardo de Torres was in Odio’s apartment with Oswald. Murgado’s testimony claims that Torres was with him and that they were only paying a social call on Odio. This of course undermines the theory that it was Bernardo De Torres who was behind setting up Oswald and JURE for the assassination of JFK. The main beneficiary of this new evidence is Bernardo De Torres.

If Murgado was indeed just paying a social call on Odio, why should then write to her father in prison expressing her concerns about her mystery visitors?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

The Murgado story is, in my opinion, one of the most important developments in the case in forty years, and it came out because of Gerry Hemming.

Of course we also need to thank Mr. Murgado and his son. Greatly appreciation the son's willingess to post his father's comments here.

Another important development, again thanks to Gerry, is the revelation of who was the Mexico City mystery man (discussed here on another thread).

You may be right but it could of course be part of a disinformation campaign. One thing is clear, either Angel Murgado or Sylvia Odio is lying.

If it is Odio who is lying, then it would appear that she might have been involved in some sort of conspiracy involving Lee Harvey Oswald.

However, if Odio told the truth, then Angel Murgado and Bernardo de Torres were involved in an attempt to link the Junta Revolucionario Cubana (JURE) with Oswald and the assassination of JFK. Odio’s organization was a socialist group opposed to Castro. It was much hated by right-wing figures like E. Howard Hunt who feared that JURE would gain control of Cuba after Castro was overthrown. JURE was of course also very unpopular with right-wing anti-Castro exiles like Bernardo de Torres.

If Odio is lying we have to ask the question why? Was she really part of a plot with Oswald to kill JFK?

If Murgado is lying we have to ask the question why? We have known for sometime that Bernardo de Torres was in Odio’s apartment with Oswald. Murgado’s testimony claims that Torres was with him and that they were only paying a social call on Odio. This of course undermines the theory that it was Bernardo De Torres who was behind setting up Oswald and JURE for the assassination of JFK. The main beneficiary of this new evidence is Bernardo De Torres.

If Murgado was indeed just paying a social call on Odio, why should then write to her father in prison expressing her concerns about her mystery visitors?

Actually!

As a true believer in only "limited" circumstance, what would be of most importantance, would be the "how" of the "coincidence" that the visit corresponded exactly with one another.

The liklihood of those from Florida coincidentally "visiting" at exactly the same time as LHO was there, is almost like buying one ticket and expecting to win the lottery.

Someone, manipulated these persons to be at the same place at the same time.

In that, lies the key.

LHO, obviously can not tell us who directed him there, however, if Mr. Murgado has any recollections as to exactly who was behind the directions which ultimately sent them to the Odio apartment, then the trail back to a "common" link is not necessarily lost.

As to "reasons" for LHO to be there, these two are of course speculation. However, when placed into the perspective of his other actions, it appears no different than those other instances in which "squirrel" Oswald was attempting to leave the false scent on as many trees in the forest as was possible.

All of which demonstrate signs which by far exceed the training and knowledge of LHO in such activities.

[Guest Amaury Murgado]

Just some quick overall comments:

I hope my recent postings on Spartacus and the Forum will shed some light on the Sylvia Odio incident. As to what my father has said, it is there for all to evaluate and judge as being useful or not. All the intense speculation that I have read thus far reminds me of a dog chasing its tail; he should know better but continues anyway.

As I have said in essence in other areas of the Forum and on Spartacus, I believe that researchers and interested parties have been led to believe that finding Angelo and Leopuldo would lead to finding the Holy Grail of the JFK assassination. The expectation level after 40 years of the unknown becoming the known has blinded everyone to the simple facts my father presents.

I want to make it clear that I respect that everyone has a right to their opinions no matter how right or wrong they are.

In the future I hope to continue learning from the Forum and its members. I want to thank everyone for thier interest in my father, positive or negative. Seeing that he was there and we were not, I guess we are all chasing our tails to some degree or another.

Cheers,

Amaury Murgado

[Tim Gratz]

John, in response to your post 47, as much as we have had our rather vociferous disagreements of late (and that is probably putting it mildly) your analysis in this post is, IMO, "right on the money".

It is my understanding that in the book "Oswald Talked" the Fontaines talk about the evidence that Odio and Oswald had been seen together in Dallas on previous occasions. Many people attempted to debunk those claims. The clear statement by Angel Murgado that Oswald was at the Odios when they arrived, if true, certainly means the evidence of these sightings deseves a careful re-evaluation. Perhaps someone who is more familiar with that posting than I am can summarize them in this thread.

If Odio was indeed "active" with Oswald before Angel and Leopoldo showed up, it does not necessarily mean she was involved in the conspiracy but it certainly raises questions that deserve investigation, perhaps best accomplished by an interview with her.

It would be interesting as well to see what President Ford, Arlen Specter and any other living members of the WC staff react to this new information.

I would also hope Gerry would post his views on what was happening here. I know, for instance, that Gery does not believe deTorres was involved in the Kennedy assassination.

I give you great credit, John, for putting together the Forum that attracted so many people including Gerry Hemming and that led to this revelation. Of course, primary thanks go to Gerry, Mr. Murgado and his son. I am looking forward to the final version of Joan Mellen's book, and to Mr. Talbot's for his view on this development.

[Gerry Hemming]

The Murgado story is, in my opinion, one of the most important developments in the case in forty years, and it came out because of Gerry Hemming.

Of course we also need to thank Mr. Murgado and his son. Greatly appreciation the son's willingess to post his father's comments here.

Another important development, again thanks to Gerry, is the revelation of who was the Mexico City mystery man (discussed here on another thread).

You may be right but it could of course be part of a disinformation campaign. One thing is clear, either Angel Murgado or Sylvia Odio is lying.

If it is Odio who is lying, then it would appear that she might have been involved in some sort of conspiracy involving Lee Harvey Oswald.

However, if Odio told the truth, then Angel Murgado and Bernardo de Torres were involved in an attempt to link the Junta Revolucionario Cubana (JURE) with Oswald and the assassination of JFK. Odio’s organization was a socialist group opposed to Castro. It was much hated by right-wing figures like E. Howard Hunt who feared that JURE would gain control of Cuba after Castro was overthrown. JURE was of course also very unpopular with right-wing anti-Castro exiles like Bernardo de Torres.

If Odio is lying we have to ask the question why? Was she really part of a plot with Oswald to kill JFK?

If Murgado is lying we have to ask the question why? We have known for sometime that Bernardo de Torres was in Odio’s apartment with Oswald. Murgado’s testimony claims that Torres was with him and that they were only paying a social call on Odio. This of course undermines the theory that it was Bernardo De Torres who was behind setting up Oswald and JURE for the assassination of JFK. The main beneficiary of this new evidence is Bernardo De Torres.

If Murgado was indeed just paying a social call on Odio, why should then write to her father in prison expressing her concerns about her mystery visitors?

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

"IF" Sylvia opts to clarify the "..writing a letter to her father about J.U.R.E. members...using a 'secret Captain Midnight style code ring'...handshake....codeword....Morse CW flatulance...??!!" GIVE ME A BREAK.

Mail to prisoners in Cuba ?? Prisoners who had set up "Operation Pedro Pan"!! Prisoners who had been sentenced for harboring an assassin who tried to kill Fidel ??!! GET REAL !! Operators sent mail to Cuban military and Intel officials so as to "burn" them. Does anybody recall the famous KGB/GRU/MVD motto that: "A security service operative builds his career, promotions, and survival on the "bones" of his fellow agents". In more simpler terms: Bureaucrat pogues [especially here in the U.S.] constantly snitch & rat-out [inform] against their fellows to insure their continuing viability.

We were fingered for having caused a few of Fidel's MOST loyal to be imprisioned and/or executed -- by just the letter technique, which was backed up by Habana Embassies cooperating in leaving Intel "litter" laying around for the [DGI] janitorial crew some evenings.

However, we proved that other Intel pogues had "beat-us-to-the-punch" and they were the ones found culpable in sending some of said "innocents ??" to their ultimate fate.

One thing guaranteed, the extremely rare letter to a prisoner, even if finally received, was: as in the U.S. system -- closely censored -- so if you want to entertain or inform the jailers, be sure to write. I don't remember if Weyl included Martino's reference to mail. But Flo was instructed to NEVER WRITE; unless she wanted to hear that he had "fallen down some stairs" AGAIN !!

"Letters to prisoners !!" Jesus H..... Even the dumb-ass Cubans got wise to that baiting technique by 1962.

AAARGH !!

GPH

_____________________________