Angel Murgado (Angelo Kennedy)

[Tim Gratz]

According to Gerry Hemming, Mr. Murgado told Professor Mellen at their first interview that Oswald was at the Odio apartment when they first arrived.

I am not sure why the article that Professor Mellen sent to the Citizen apparently had an error re this.

Of course the statement is attributed to Mr. Murgado, not Professor Mellen. So far as I know she was not a witness to the "Odio incident."

When a writer says "according to Mr. X etc" the writer is in no way questioning the credibility of Mr. X. That is both a literary and jopurnalistic writing convention. E.g. a political reporter might read: "According to a highly placxed source on Capitol hill. . ."

I seriously doubt that Professor Mellen would have published the Murgado story in her book if she did not believe it. She has never indicated to me that she does not believe it. However, if it should turn out not to be true, that is not, IMO, any reflection on Professor Mellen or her book.

Of course, I was not at the Odio apartment either (think I was at a high school football game that night). Nor was I present at the interview which I understand included Mr. Murgado, Professor Mellen, Gerry Hemming and his son. Therefore I am not in a position to evaluate Mr. Murgado's "demeanor". My research into this matter will continue since it seems of some importance.

[John Simkin]

According to Gerry Hemming, Mr. Murgado told Professor Mellen at their first interview that Oswald was at the Odio apartment when they first arrived.

I am not sure why the article that Professor Mellen sent to the Citizen apparently had an error re this.

As you know, what was said at this meeting is now a matter of dispute. Personally, I find it difficult to believe that Joan got such a crucial piece of evidence wrong. She would have known immediately that Murgado was lying about this because of the testimony of Silvia Odio.

If I had to choose between the two different versions of what was said, I would believe Joan Mellen.

However, you still have not explained why you misrepresented what Joan says in her book. Why did you do it? Is it because you cannot read. Or do you have some other motive?

[Tim Gratz]

John, how did I misrepresent what Joan Mellen said in her book? I fail to understand what you are getting at.

If as you have suggested the purpose of a "Murgado gambit" was to "clean up" deTorres the most important thing for Murgado to DO was to say that they had not traveled to Odios with Oswald. So how could Murgado get this wrong if that was the entire purpose of what was going on?

Do you know for a fact that Mellen says that Murgado first offered a different story? If that is the case, then it is absolutely incredible to me that she would not put his change of story in her book--a rather remarkable omission, I would say.

And why would she ask me to change the post on this forum without noting in the post that it represented a very important CHANGE of story by Murgado.

The fact that she did not record it, either here or in her book, makes me wonder if it was in fact a change.

I think we need to hear directly from Professor Mellen exactly what happened (from her perspective).

I will of course be interested to learn what Mr. Murgado told Mr. Talbot (of course thec date of the two interviews will also be of some importance).

Edited November 10, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Larry Hancock]

Thanks Gerry, "Watch your six" is indeed a good piece of advice - which I will relay.

Whenever possible I try to keep a 360 clear field of fire for about 5 miles in

any direction. The view's better that way...

-- Larry

Larry: This is the same Larry who has exchanged e-mails with me over many years ??

I will make this short and unsweetened. I'm sorry that you've been spoofed by some phony Hargraves/Twyman transcripts, etc. !! I arranged for the interviews,and set ALL of the rules that would be adhered to. The agreement was that ALL interviews would be held ONLY at my brother's law offices; would be recorded both by tape and paid outside & certified court reporter (Steno) who would execute a sworn & notarized statement (Affidavit) that she had not only NOT ever worked for my brother, but had never even been to the offices prior thereto.

Hi Gerry, yep its the same Larry from your email list...couldn't seem to add this in the correct thread so I'll put it here.

.....to clarify a bit, what I have in my possession are the transcripts from a tape recorded session with Roy and and your brother. The transcript seems to cover the arrangements for the taping and the agreement for the interview with Roy.... the transcript was provided by Noel Twyman who related to me the circumstances and fee arrangement for the interview etc. If there is any spoofing being done it would have to be directly from Noel who holds the tapes of the interviews and the transcripts. Do I understand that you or Roy's family have made legal representations to Noel Twyman over this material? Is it true that Roy did not encourage Noel to publish material from the interview in a new edition of his book as the transcript relates?

-- Larry

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

Larry:

I haven't spoken with Noel in years, in fact many researchers told me he had died. One suggested that he might have joined with a 2nd "Heavens Gate" trek to the great UFO hiding behind comets in the northern skies.

As you know, the 1st H.G. "Trekkers" were neighbors of his, who had leased a palatial home in the closed compound "Rancho" community north of San Diego.

I warned my brother to discreetly advise Noel that: after the "controlled" interviews, Roy, always the hustler, would attempt to bilk the old man out of a large chunk of buck$ in the near term. He began this very scheme within weeks of the final interviews at my brother's law offices.

He was so sure of his abilties at inventing some new Dealey Plaza confabulation, he asked my brother to contact a family member -- who was then a Florida prosecutor, engineer an attempt to quash the warrants, enter a nolo contendere plea -- which would be based upon his swearing to re-imburse the thousands of dollars he wrote bad checks on.

Perhaps he indeed "spoofed" Twyman out of considerable cash, I don't know; but his newly found Mings family heard him boast oftentimes of this fait acompli !! Roy was heavily addicted to Heroin, and frequently drank to excess, so most of the family ignored his boasting.

Others were shocked and dismayed that he would go along with Twyman's fervent agenda of placing both Felipe Vidal Santiago and he on the scene that day. Moreover, others were stunned that he failed to name one of his sons after Felipe, as I did. It was soon apparent that Felipe had been conned just as bad as Rosemarie Vernell had been. Twyman's strange impetus against Felipe began with Escalante's bullxxxx stories in nassau.

[Many thought it was strange that an engineer who retired from the CIA controlled Bechtel Corp. would scribble a JFK conspiracy tome while approaching his senior 70s]

Rosemarie Vernell was a CIA asset who infrequently penetrated the RFK/JFK millieu during 1962. While the "2nd Unit" of the movie production company was filming "PT-109" at a locale just south of No Name key; "Dutch" Henry [2nd Unit Director] sent Ms. Vernell to No name asking us to lunch on the set.

Once there, "Dutch" asked us to honor our pledge to RFK that we would not hijack the 2 ex-coast guard ASR-81 boats which had been converted to resemble WWII PT Boats. He further stated that, however: once the film was "in the can" it wouldn't be bad publicity if said "PT Boats [both painted with bow numbers "109" actually were "hijacked" and used on a raid into Cuba. RFK didn't think that was very funny.

Rosemarie's brother, Louis Vernell, was an aide to Meyer lanskey. and was in and out of trouble [and the press] into the 1980s.

Hargraves opted to abandon No name, and thereafter "shack-up" with Rosemarie at the Alqazar hotel on Biscayne Blvd. -- where she was the boss P.R. person. Roy serviced her and was paid to write poetry [some of it good] which was placed with the napkin holders on the dining room tables. I actually spent a few freebies there, but due to the "Crisis" crap -- I had business elsewhere.

Hargraves was banished forever from No Name soon, and he was labled "A Poet and City Commando" by Whatley and others. When he made one attempt to return to No name, Whatley invited him to a duel, Dick's "Arkansas Toothpick" [large Bowie Knife - which he threw very expertly] versus Roy's unholstered .45 Colt.

[This was long before "Magnificent 7" and Coburn's famous knife bit].

Bobby Willis stood as "second" [as the sun went down", and held a pistol at his side to take out Roy if he won. Little Joe Garman had his Springfield "03" pointed at the back of Bobby's head to prevent said retaliation. Jim Lewis had a carbine pointed from the shadows at little Joe. I had a cocked "Tommy Gun" with a full 30 round magazine; declared the duel as a draw, and placed hargraves on a boat "out-of-Dodge" !!

I am in very infrequent contact with Roy's daughter & Son-in-Law, but he is learned in the law; and sure as hell will not permit his kids grandfather to be portrayed as a DP participant. Moreover, he has a degree in computer engineering -- is a skilled "hacker-hunter'; and therefore knows how to arrange the full panoply of DOS, worm, keylogger, trojan, etc. operations.

Moreover, he is extremely violent when aroused, as I witnessed when he almost beat a meter reader to death for spraying his dog with pepper spray. I doubt that if I learned of their intentions reference the matter, I would ever be inclined to disclose same. More importantly, I would take more serious precautions in this instance than I would ever in the case of even Bernardo de Torres. "Watch Your 6" is the byword to all concerned !!

Saludos,

GPH

__________________________

Forgot to mention, what seems like ages ago I had a nice exchange with a gentleman named

Mings from Saint Louis. That was back in my Compuserve forum days. He was looking for

a relative he thought might be using the name Hargraves and I was able to confirm that

he was on the right track. Think I still have the messages on my old PC although I forget his name. I was glad to hear that he had eventually located Roy and managed something of a family reunion.

Which only shows I've obviously been doing this stuff way too long...that must have been 15 years

ago if not more.

-- Larry

[John Simkin]

John, how did I misrepresent what Joan Mellen said in her book? I fail to understand what you are getting at.

Angelo Murgado says, repeat says, that Oswald was there when he arrived. This is attributed to him, not to me. He is on the record as saying Oswald was already there. So I must say he says that is what happened....HE SAYS.....Fairness decreed that I give his side of the story. So I added the attribution: HE CLAIMS. HE SAYS.

As to Tim's question, Joan does not recant the entire story Murgado story as initially described but clearly as an author she has to responsibility to integrate qualifying remarks at her sources request and has done so. On page 381 she comments that "It may seem that Mr. Murgado is distancing himself from Oswald, whom he acknowledges, however that he had him under surveillance."

As I read it she has not changed anything in regard to de Torres or his call back to Sylvia

Can't you grasp that Joan was quoting Murgado, not expressing her own view.

[Guest Amaury Murgado]

Mr. Simkin:

It is obvious by your comments (on this and some of your other posts) that you have taken up a line of reasoning based on one person’s side of the story. Perhaps if I restate some important points that have been either intentionally or accidentally overlooked in your analysis, it might help others understand the issue. You write in post 62:

As you know, what was said at this meeting is now a matter of dispute. Personally, I find it difficult to believe that Joan got such a crucial piece of evidence wrong.

If I had to choose between the two different versions of what was said, I would believe Joan Mellen.

It is safe to assume you are placing a great deal of weight to one side of the story. Especially since you have not contacted me since your kind offer to join the Forum. Perhaps this issue can finally be resolved professionally, by asking to have the relevant portions which are in dispute, of my father’s taped interview transcribed and forwarded to you? I would believe that my father’s voice on a tape and subsequent transcriptions, would be accepted by any reasonable person as validation as to what was said or not. Especially in light of that fact that it is overly apparent that my father’s word, or the word of the two other people present at the interview are not being considered as material or significant.

That notes and tapes of notes were taken after the interview took place, I have no doubt and is not nor has ever been in question. But let’s be fair about the whole issue. Since you are so certain as to the veracity of the claim, I will let you take the lead on this. Since you will soon learn that no such material exits of the actual interview itself, will you at least meet me half way and concede that without documentation during the interview there is room for the possibility that, without malicious intent of course, something could have been misinterpreted?

In reality, the point is mute. It is actually cleared up in Post 57 by the author:

Angelo Murgado says, repeat says, that Oswald was there when he arrived. This is attributed to him, not to me. He is on the record as saying Oswald was already there. So I must say he says that is what happened....HE SAYS.....Fairness decreed that I give his side of the story. So I added the attribution: HE CLAIMS. HE SAYS.

For the record, had this oversight been found and corrected earlier, before the article in question appeared in The Citizen, this “dispute” as you call it, would never have occurred.

I have no problem with dissenting opinions about my father or the substance of his interview. But you and others, no matter how creatively or politely are putting it, are in fact, calling him a xxxx about what happened or did not happen during his interview. I have no choice as his son but to take exception. Do not call my father a xxxx about an interview that two other people witnessed and that no documentation during the interview exists. That sir, is not only absurd, unprofessional, but also can be interpreted as malicious.

People have tried to make a non-malicious, simple oversight about one statement and have turned an otherwise reputable Forum into a Jerry Springer episode. I am turning my TV off and no longer want a part in it.

Let me know when you can produce the specific information I have requested that will prove my father is lying about his interview. When you do, I will publicly eat crow and apologize to you, anyone else involved, and the Forum as a whole... if you can’t, please tell me how you like your crow served.

Let’s put this to rest and get on with the real debate; the issues!

Respectfully,

Amaury Murgado

[John Simkin]

Mr. Simkin:

It is obvious by your comments (on this and some of your other posts) that you have taken up a line of reasoning based on one person’s side of the story. Perhaps if I restate some important points that have been either intentionally or accidentally overlooked in your analysis, it might help others understand the issue. You write in post 62:

As you know, what was said at this meeting is now a matter of dispute. Personally, I find it difficult to believe that Joan got such a crucial piece of evidence wrong.

If I had to choose between the two different versions of what was said, I would believe Joan Mellen.

It is safe to assume you are placing a great deal of weight to one side of the story. Especially since you have not contacted me since your kind offer to join the Forum. Perhaps this issue can finally be resolved professionally, by asking to have the relevant portions which are in dispute, of my father’s taped interview transcribed and forwarded to you? I would believe that my father’s voice on a tape and subsequent transcriptions, would be accepted by any reasonable person as validation as to what was said or not. Especially in light of that fact that it is overly apparent that my father’s word, or the word of the two other people present at the interview are not being considered as material or significant.

That notes and tapes of notes were taken after the interview took place, I have no doubt and is not nor has ever been in question. But let’s be fair about the whole issue. Since you are so certain as to the veracity of the claim, I will let you take the lead on this. Since you will soon learn that no such material exits of the actual interview itself, will you at least meet me half way and concede that without documentation during the interview there is room for the possibility that, without malicious intent of course, something could have been misinterpreted?

In reality, the point is mute. It is actually cleared up in Post 57 by the author:

Angelo Murgado says, repeat says, that Oswald was there when he arrived. This is attributed to him, not to me. He is on the record as saying Oswald was already there. So I must say he says that is what happened....HE SAYS.....Fairness decreed that I give his side of the story. So I added the attribution: HE CLAIMS. HE SAYS.

For the record, had this oversight been found and corrected earlier, before the article in question appeared in The Citizen, this “dispute” as you call it, would never have occurred.

I have no problem with dissenting opinions about my father or the substance of his interview. But you and others, no matter how creatively or politely are putting it, are in fact, calling him a xxxx about what happened or did not happen during his interview. I have no choice as his son but to take exception. Do not call my father a xxxx about an interview that two other people witnessed and that no documentation during the interview exists. That sir, is not only absurd, unprofessional, but also can be interpreted as malicious.

As you know, what was said at this meeting is now a matter of dispute. I have not called anyone a xxxx. However, I have had email communication with all those concerned and so far I find Joan Mellen’s account more convincing. As I also said earlier, I also believe the account given by Silvia Odio of the incident. You obviously think she is lying. It is of course impossible to prove anything without a recording of the 1963 or 2005 meetings.

Do you have any evidence of your father’s meetings with Robert Kennedy? Can you provide any back-up witnesses to these meetings? Are you aware that several people who were close to Manual Artime dispute your father’s story about his relationship with Kennedy?

As you know, Silvia Odio gave a fairly detailed description of Leopoldo and Angelo. From pictures taken in 1963, we can see that Bernardo De Torres definitely looks like Leopoldo. Could you provide a photograph of your father taken at this time?

[Stuart Wexler]

John,

I am interested in one component of your post in particular (and agree that a photo of Angel Kennedy circa 1963 would be helpful in evaluating competing claims here):

You said that many in Artime's clique dispute Murgado's relationship with RFK. Could you please elaborate on that.

Thanks,

Stu

Mr. Simkin:

It is obvious by your comments (on this and some of your other posts) that you have taken up a line of reasoning based on one person’s side of the story. Perhaps if I restate some important points that have been either intentionally or accidentally overlooked in your analysis, it might help others understand the issue. You write in post 62:

As you know, what was said at this meeting is now a matter of dispute. Personally, I find it difficult to believe that Joan got such a crucial piece of evidence wrong.

If I had to choose between the two different versions of what was said, I would believe Joan Mellen.

It is safe to assume you are placing a great deal of weight to one side of the story. Especially since you have not contacted me since your kind offer to join the Forum. Perhaps this issue can finally be resolved professionally, by asking to have the relevant portions which are in dispute, of my father’s taped interview transcribed and forwarded to you? I would believe that my father’s voice on a tape and subsequent transcriptions, would be accepted by any reasonable person as validation as to what was said or not. Especially in light of that fact that it is overly apparent that my father’s word, or the word of the two other people present at the interview are not being considered as material or significant.

That notes and tapes of notes were taken after the interview took place, I have no doubt and is not nor has ever been in question. But let’s be fair about the whole issue. Since you are so certain as to the veracity of the claim, I will let you take the lead on this. Since you will soon learn that no such material exits of the actual interview itself, will you at least meet me half way and concede that without documentation during the interview there is room for the possibility that, without malicious intent of course, something could have been misinterpreted?

In reality, the point is mute. It is actually cleared up in Post 57 by the author:

Angelo Murgado says, repeat says, that Oswald was there when he arrived. This is attributed to him, not to me. He is on the record as saying Oswald was already there. So I must say he says that is what happened....HE SAYS.....Fairness decreed that I give his side of the story. So I added the attribution: HE CLAIMS. HE SAYS.

For the record, had this oversight been found and corrected earlier, before the article in question appeared in The Citizen, this “dispute” as you call it, would never have occurred.

I have no problem with dissenting opinions about my father or the substance of his interview. But you and others, no matter how creatively or politely are putting it, are in fact, calling him a xxxx about what happened or did not happen during his interview. I have no choice as his son but to take exception. Do not call my father a xxxx about an interview that two other people witnessed and that no documentation during the interview exists. That sir, is not only absurd, unprofessional, but also can be interpreted as malicious.

As you know, what was said at this meeting is now a matter of dispute. I have not called anyone a xxxx. However, I have had email communication with all those concerned and so far I find Joan Mellen’s account more convincing. As I also said earlier, I also believe the account given by Silvia Odio of the incident. You obviously think she is lying. It is of course impossible to prove anything without a recording of the 1963 or 2005 meetings.

Do you have any evidence of your father’s meetings with Robert Kennedy? Can you provide any back-up witnesses to these meetings? Are you aware that several people who were close to Manual Artime dispute your father’s story about his relationship with Kennedy?

As you know, Silvia Odio gave a fairly detailed description of Leopoldo and Angelo. From pictures taken in 1963, we can see that Bernardo De Torres definitely looks like Leopoldo. Could you provide a photograph of your father taken at this time?

[John Simkin]

You said that many in Artime's clique dispute Murgado's relationship with RFK. Could you please elaborate on that.

This is based on information from a journalist who is working on an article about Murgado's claim. He obviously does not want me to name these people before the article is published.

[Tim Carroll]

You said that many in Artime's clique dispute Murgado's relationship with RFK. Could you please elaborate on that.

This is based on information from a journalist who is working on an article about Murgado's claim.

I am especially eager to see what David Talbot has to say about the RFK-Artime relationship, which is at the core of understanding the Cubela operation, as well as the current Mellen-Murgado allegations.

Tim

[Pat Speer]

Correct me if I'm wrong. Mr. Murgado now says he told Ms. Mellen that Oswald was already there when he arrived. He claims he told her that the first time. She, in turn, has agreed to change that in her book. If SHE'S not willing to come out and say that she knows for sure what he said in the interview, then I don't believe we have any business questioning the man on this point.

I'm also not so sure the conflicts between Murgado's and Odio's accounts cannot be resolved. Perhaps the three men arrived so close in time that Ms. Odio remembered them as coming in together. Since Odio claimed it was Leopoldo (de Torres) who called her the next day, the possibility remains that Murgado was in the dark as to what was really going on.

I think that before we can make a decision on this we need to get the rest of Amaury's father's story.

1. As Mr. Purvis has pointed out, we need to know who sent de Torres and Murgado to the Odio's.

2. I believe we also need to hear about their departure. Did they leave with Oswald? If so, were words exchanged?

3. I believe we also need to know about Murgado's and de Torres' relationship. Was de Torres working with Murgado to "out" possible security risks? If so, is it possible they visited Odio to see if she was involved in any radical groups? If so, could de Torres have called the next day to discuss Oswald to 1) see if Odio would tell him what Oswald was up to, and 2) see what she was up to based upon her response to what Oswald was up to?

4. I believe we need to know more about de Torres. Did Gerry just say that de Torres was involved in the Letelier bombing? Did I get that right? If so, I think we need to hear from Gerry why we should believe de Torres would hold back from killing Kennedy, a man whom many Cubans felt a personal animosity against, when he had no qualms blowing up a few people, including a woman, on the streets of Washington? People whose great "crime" was that they were trying to stop the murder and torture of civilians in Chile..

I guess what I'm asking is if it's possible that de Torres is the suspicious one here, and if it's not possible that Murgado was just another "patsy."

[Guest Amaury Murgado]

It is of course impossible to prove anything without a recording of the 1963 or 2005 meetings.

Thank you. I'll take that as meaning you concede to my point.

Do you have any evidence of your father’s meetings with Robert Kennedy?

Considering these were non-recorded, secret meetings, involving a select few on a need to know basis, would you expect any?

Can you provide any back-up witnesses to these meetings?

If there are any left, coming forward would be up to them and not up to my father.

Are you aware that several people who were close to Manual Artime dispute your father’s story about his relationship with Kennedy?

Considering there were very few people involved according to my father, this does not surprise me. Let's meet in the middle again and agree that being close to someone does not mean they know everything about you. Being of Cuban decent, I know Cubans love to talk, and Artime was no exception, but can any one of these men who will be coming forward with thier own counterfactual, be willing to say they were with Artime 24/7 during that time frame? I think not. I welcome their views and hope that they will add to the current body of knowledge instead of just throwing stones.

As you know, Silvia Odio gave a fairly detailed description of Leopoldo and Angelo. From pictures taken in 1963, we can see that Bernardo De Torres definitely looks like Leopoldo. Could you provide a photograph of your father taken at this time?

No photpgraph will be forthcoming, but I can assure you that her description is not even close to my father's. My father in no way can ever be confused with a person of Mexican origin. If we are to assume that Sylvia Odio's statement is correct, then forget my father, and let's move on. I like keeping my options open however, as I firmly believe that History is written by the victor or more precisely put, by those in control.

[Gerry Hemming]

You said that many in Artime's clique dispute Murgado's relationship with RFK. Could you please elaborate on that.

This is based on information from a journalist who is working on an article about Murgado's claim.

I am especially eager to see what David Talbot has to say about the RFK-Artime relationship, which is at the core of understanding the Cubela operation, as well as the current Mellen-Murgado allegations.

Tim

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

Tim:

Unfortunately the distinguished founder of the pereanaly [note anal ??] buck$ losing salon.com [Talbot] has been steered to characters who were NOT part of Artime's alleged "clique", but in real life were members of 2nd Naval Guerrilla -- and/or were found to be prior "Artime-haters" while they were imprisoned on the Isle of Pines ["Youth ??] post-Playa Giron [b.O.P.].

These characters despised Artime for having been a Castro INRA official in Oriente, and that somehow this non-combatant [in the Sierra Maestra] was made a "political commissar" [soviet Style] within the BA2506 chain-of-command and pre-B.O.P. !! The majority of these whiners were, and still are ardent Batistianos -- and current allies of the Diaz Balart, Ros Lehtinen, and ostracized Mas Canosa element which applauded the recent tightening of the criminal [war crime] embargo against the Cuban people !!

The former spokewoman for the Cuban American Foundation, Ninotchska Perez, was ousted by the late Mas Canosa's son, and this was primarily due to her unflagging support and involvement in the several recent and even the long ago attempts upon Fidel Castro's life.

[viz: the Coast Interception of the yacht off of Puerto Rico, where several Barrett .50 cal. long range sniper weapons were stashed onboard. And the Mas Canosa funding [via Ninotchka] of the "Bambi" Posada attempt on Fidel in Panama.

Check again the pages of Gaeton Fonzi's "Last Investigation", especially wherein he and Joe Gonzales [NYPD on loan to HSCA] are surveilling a "Botique", and that they are unexplainably soon and unexplicably "ordered" to cease said surveillance.

Well, we also had the same "Botique" under surveillance, and Fonzi & Joe will recall me going in and out of there with Bernardo de Torres, during several meetingss there.

Who ran the "Botique" - Aha !! "Benny's" girlfriend, one Ninotchka Perez. And what were the meetings inside said Botique about ?? The ploting of the assassination of the president of the Dominican Repupublic, Jaoquin Balaguer. I explained to "Benny" that my teams, including Angelo Kennedy were busy "hauling hay" and thus making big buck$ -- and youse guys anin't got the kind of money that will divert their attention to your scheme at this time -- Adios "Mo-Fo" !! ['Nam vets say "Alpha-Mike-Foxtrot"]

[NOTE: Ninotchska is now the wife of Roberto San martin, the same clown who landed at Casilda [Trinidad, Las Villas Province & and the original site for the BOP landing] in a DomRep Air Force C-46 [July 1959].

This occured during the famous "Morgan/Menoyo" doublecross of the vaunted "Generalissimo". I was there, and standing near Fidel as this dumb-ass pilot landed the plane. Fidel cheered the "liberators" as they disembarked from the aircraft, and it was quite a few minutes before these "rebels" recognized this shadowy cheer-leader as Fidel.

And who was the only stupid son-of-a-bitch who refused to surrender, opened fire -- and caught a couple of bullets up his ass -- Guess who ?? Ninotchska's beloved Roberto !! And who got the stiffest sentence at the trial ?? Roberto !! And who was mysteriouly released before serving out said sentence, and is suspected of being a current D.G.I. "snitch" ?? Wait for it !! You got it -- ROBERTO SAN MARTIN !!

Strange that Roberto is assisting the phony "Artime" clique in their interviews, Eh Wot old chap ??!!

Some of Angelo's detractors are the very same ex-batistianos who were plotting to assassinate Balaguer. The same Batistianos whom caused problems for ALL of the former Fidel rebel army members training in the camps at "Base Trax" [JM/TRAX]; and the same Batistianos who, after landing at Playa Larga, stashed their weapons, stripped their cammy shirts off, and cowardly surrendered to the Castro militia.

These same Batistiano "Brigade 2506 Heroes??" objected to Angelo running the BA2506 training camps during the 1980s, but De Torres intervened and vetoed their sniveling & whining !!

Recently, it was this same clique of COWARDS being interviewed by Talbot and others [These collaborators with DGI while held as POWs during '61 -'62]; and despite that Artime was especially maltreated by the Castro guards, they were treated to goodies and better living conditions. This caused some of them to be denied the opportunity to go to Fort Benning Officer Candidate School during 1963.

None of these COWARDS served [or even volunteered] to fight the Sandinistas during 1978-'79, and primarily due to Somoza's [and Reboso's] suspicions that they were much too close to Mariano Faget, who was the ex-JM/WAVE prime debriefer of VIPs fleeing Cuba [at his Opa-Locka Air Port Hangar Office] -- and if the name Marianno Faget doesn't ring a bill: check out the Bastista Communist Repression "Bureau" [of torturers and murderers] !!

Also note that Faget was recently convicted of being a D.G.I. spy while in the employ of the U.S. Goverment, and is currently serving a lengthy prison sentence !!

Those same cowards "OUSTED" Angelo [their feeble ultimate revenge] from "The Bay of Pigs Brigade Association" upon learning that when he visited Cuba a while back, he was treated as a V.I.P. and a brother, by the now retired Castro General's who had fought against Angelo and his BA2506 brothers at Playa Giron.

They invited him to return and live out his life there, in the same comforts as those retired Fidel Generals !!

He opted for Mexico instead, but we shall see !!

Alfredo Duran and a few others were similarly "blacballed from the BA2506 Association, especially because Fidel reinstated them as Citizens of the Republic of Cuba.

BTW, these so-called "close to Artime fools" were constantly under suspicion as being Castro spies.

I won't go into the extensive Intel files shown to Angelo whilst in Havana, but suffice it to say: that the DGI/G-2 F.A.R. types were not associated with Fabian Escalante.

Do Talbot's, et al. "Artime" informants fear being "outed" soon -- well some may be getting on the plane to Havana right now [via Chalk Air to Nassau] !!

Chairs,

GPH

___________________________

[Tim Carroll]

Unfortunately the distinguished founder of the pereanaly [note anal ??] buck$ losing salon.com [Talbot] has been steered to characters who were NOT part of Artime's alleged "clique", but in real life were members of 2nd Naval Guerrilla -- and/or were found to be prior "Artime-haters" while they were imprisoned on the Isle of Pines ["Youth ??] post-Playa Giron [b.O.P.].... BTW, these so-called "close to Artime fools" were constantly under suspicion as being Castro spies. I won't go into the extensive Intel files shown to Angelo whilst in Havana, but suffice it to say: that the DGI/G-2 F.A.R. types were not associated with Fabian Escalante. Do Talbot's, et al. "Artime" informants fear being "outed" soon -- well some may be getting on the plane to Havana right now [via Chalk Air to Nassau] !!

I don't understand the distinction that would explain why Second Naval Guerrilla members would be anti-Artime, given his position with that operation. There is also the above distinction between DGI and Escalante. So it was the same Batistianos who had caused such disruption at Camp Trax, who had too easily and quickly surrendered at the Bay of Pigs after hiding their weapons, and who had collaborated with the DGI to obtain better treatment in custody that were somehow opposed to Artime? And it is particularly this clique, as opposed to the actual Artime clique, that has David Talbot's ear on these matters? It's the Roberto San Martin clique rather than the Bernardo de Torres clique?

Those same cowards "OUSTED" Angelo [their feeble ultimate revenge] from "The Bay of Pigs Brigade Association" upon learning that when he visited Cuba a while back, he was treated as a V.I.P. and a brother, by the now retired Castro General's who had fought against Angelo and his BA2506 brothers at Playa Giron. They invited him to return and live out his life there, in the same comforts as those retired Fidel Generals !! He opted for Mexico instead, but we shall see !! Alfredo Duran and a few others were similarly "blacballed from the BA2506 Association, especially because Fidel reinstated them as Citizens of the Republic of Cuba.

Why would Angelo be treated as a V.I.P. by Castro and his generals? Why would he be reinstated as a Citizen of the Republic of Cuba? Is it some kind of twisted Hemingwayesque sportmanship, the love and mutual respect for one's foe? Or is there some actual, more sinister relationship underlying the exile community's repudiation of Angelo Murgado?

Tim Carroll

[Gerry Hemming]

Unfortunately the distinguished founder of the pereanaly [note anal ??] buck$ losing salon.com [Talbot] has been steered to characters who were NOT part of Artime's alleged "clique", but in real life were members of 2nd Naval Guerrilla -- and/or were found to be prior "Artime-haters" while they were imprisoned on the Isle of Pines ["Youth ??] post-Playa Giron [b.O.P.].... BTW, these so-called "close to Artime fools" were constantly under suspicion as being Castro spies. I won't go into the extensive Intel files shown to Angelo whilst in Havana, but suffice it to say: that the DGI/G-2 F.A.R. types were not associated with Fabian Escalante. Do Talbot's, et al. "Artime" informants fear being "outed" soon -- well some may be getting on the plane to Havana right now [via Chalk Air to Nassau] !!

I don't understand the distinction that would explain why Second Naval Guerrilla members would be anti-Artime, given his position with that operation. There is also the above distinction between DGI and Escalante. So it was the same Batistianos who had caused such disruption at Camp Trax, who had too easily and quickly surrendered at the Bay of Pigs after hiding their weapons, and who had collaborated with the DGI to obtain better treatment in custody that were somehow opposed to Artime? And it is particularly this clique, as opposed to the actual Artime clique, that has David Talbot's ear on these matters? It's the Roberto San Martin clique rather than the Bernardo de Torres clique?

Those same cowards "OUSTED" Angelo [their feeble ultimate revenge] from "The Bay of Pigs Brigade Association" upon learning that when he visited Cuba a while back, he was treated as a V.I.P. and a brother, by the now retired Castro General's who had fought against Angelo and his BA2506 brothers at Playa Giron. They invited him to return and live out his life there, in the same comforts as those retired Fidel Generals !! He opted for Mexico instead, but we shall see !! Alfredo Duran and a few others were similarly "blacballed from the BA2506 Association, especially because Fidel reinstated them as Citizens of the Republic of Cuba.

Why would Angelo be treated as a V.I.P. by Castro and his generals? Why would he be reinstated as a Citizen of the Republic of Cuba? Is it some kind of twisted Hemingwayesque sportmanship, the love and mutual respect for one's foe? Or is there some actual, more sinister relationship underlying the exile community's repudiation of Angelo Murgado?

Tim Carroll

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

Jesus H. TIM:

The "Exile Cmmunity" repudiating Angelo ??!! GET A LIFE !! He is their hero !! It is the Batistiano xxxxs who

[as a distinct minority] who have moved against Duran, Menoyo, Murgado, et al.

THINK LAD !! The "Exile Community" is composed of 80% "latecomers'" [batistiano Term] who came out post-BOP, Camarioca, "Freedom Flights", Mariel, and Rafters [balseros] -- NOT Batista trash.

What enraged them about Freddy Duran was that his step-father, Batista's President of the Cuban Senate,

constitutionally [Cuban 1940 Consitution] took power [for 2 days] after Batista "rabbited out" on Jan. 1st 1959. Anselmo, Anita, Freddy, Anselmito, Rosa, et al. took asylum in the Brazil Embassy. Upon their arrival in Miami, where they had extensive properties, Anselmo immediately employed Howard K. Davis, et al. to begin flight snatching out some of the other ex-Batista VIPs. However, Juan Orta and CIA asset June Cobb (Fidel's "Gringa secretary, under Celia Sanchez) worked up a scheme to ambush the flights landing on highways such as the "Via Blanca east of Havana". One who wasn't killed in these set-ups was Bill Shergales, who was eventually bailed out of El PrincipePrison (Cellmate with Martino) by Alliegro's money being used to bribe the Nat'l Police Chief, Cmdte. Almeijeras ("El Fumador" -The "weed" Smoker).

Now you are going to further impugn Angelo because he and others were respected a apolitical warriors ??!!

"SCREW YOU, SISTER !!"

Unfortunately the distinguished founder of the pereanaly [note anal ??] buck$ losing salon.com [Talbot] has been steered to characters who were NOT part of Artime's alleged "clique", but in real life were members of 2nd Naval Guerrilla -- and/or were found to be prior "Artime-haters" while they were imprisoned on the Isle of Pines ["Youth ??] post-Playa Giron [b.O.P.].... BTW, these so-called "close to Artime fools" were constantly under suspicion as being Castro spies. I won't go into the extensive Intel files shown to Angelo whilst in Havana, but suffice it to say: that the DGI/G-2 F.A.R. types were not associated with Fabian Escalante. Do Talbot's, et al. "Artime" informants fear being "outed" soon -- well some may be getting on the plane to Havana right now [via Chalk Air to Nassau] !!

I don't understand the distinction that would explain why Second Naval Guerrilla members would be anti-Artime, given his position with that operation. There is also the above distinction between DGI and Escalante. So it was the same Batistianos who had caused such disruption at Camp Trax, who had too easily and quickly surrendered at the Bay of Pigs after hiding their weapons, and who had collaborated with the DGI to obtain better treatment in custody that were somehow opposed to Artime? And it is particularly this clique, as opposed to the actual Artime clique, that has David Talbot's ear on these matters? It's the Roberto San Martin clique rather than the Bernardo de Torres clique?

Those same cowards "OUSTED" Angelo [their feeble ultimate revenge] from "The Bay of Pigs Brigade Association" upon learning that when he visited Cuba a while back, he was treated as a V.I.P. and a brother, by the now retired Castro General's who had fought against Angelo and his BA2506 brothers at Playa Giron. They invited him to return and live out his life there, in the same comforts as those retired Fidel Generals !! He opted for Mexico instead, but we shall see !! Alfredo Duran and a few others were similarly "blacballed from the BA2506 Association, especially because Fidel reinstated them as Citizens of the Republic of Cuba.

Why would Angelo be treated as a V.I.P. by Castro and his generals? Why would he be reinstated as a Citizen of the Republic of Cuba? Is it some kind of twisted Hemingwayesque sportmanship, the love and mutual respect for one's foe? Or is there some actual, more sinister relationship underlying the exile community's repudiation of Angelo Murgado?

Tim Carroll

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

Jesus H. TIM:

The "Exile Cmmunity" repudiating Angelo ??!! GET A LIFE !! He is their hero !! It is the Batistiano xxxxs who

[as a distinct minority] who have moved against Duran, Menoyo, Murgado, et al.

THINK LAD !! The "Exile Community" is composed of 80% "latecomers'" [batistiano Term] who came out post-BOP, Camarioca, "Freedom Flights", Mariel, and Rafters [balseros] -- NOT Batista trash.

What enraged them about Freddy Duran was that his step-father, Batista's President of the Cuban Senate,

constitutionally [Cuban 1940 Consitution] took power [for 2 days] after Batista "rabbited out" on Jan. 1st 1959. Anselmo, Anita, Freddy, Anselmito, Rosa, et al. took asylum in the Brazil Embassy. Upon their arrival in Miami, where they had extensive properties, Anselmo immediately employed Howard K. Davis, et al. to begin flight snatching out some of the other ex-Batista VIPs. However, Juan Orta and CIA asset June Cobb (Fidel's "Gringa secretary, under Celia Sanchez) worked up a scheme to ambush the flights landing on highways such as the "Via Blanca east of Havana". One who wasn't killed in these set-ups was Bill Shergales, who was eventually bailed out of El PrincipePrison (Cellmate with Martino) by Alliegro's money being used to bribe the Nat'l Police Chief, Cmdte. Almeijeras ("El Fumador" -The "weed" Smoker).

Now you are going to further impugn Angelo because he and others were finally given respect as apolitical warriors ??!!

"SCREW YOU, SISTER !!"

GPH

________________________