Angel Murgado (Angelo Kennedy)

[Chris Cox]

Oh, hell I just had to skip to the end of this mess. I can’t keep track. The larger community of research has me convinced that if Oswald himself stepped out from the mist with a “yea or nay”, there'd be the same "he said she said" rot, none of which gets us closer to any truth, just more data to comb through, and arguments to pursue, egos to clash and mend.

Can someone recap? Why is the Odio story important? Because it forewarned of the assassination? Because LHO may have arrived first at the apt and this means some relationship could have possibly existed between the subjects (it doesn't IMO)? Isn't the next interview that's needed, Sylvia's? Wonder why Joan didn't hire a PI and find the Odio's to interview, it would have made things clearer and sold more books. The LHO Odio(s) saw (I would show her several photos) could be other Oswald’s as some researchers have put forward-isn't this a possibility that could explain some things?

Seems to me a source has now (Mr. Murgado) come forward with something someone writes down or doesn't (what matters is it was said and there were witnesses) prints a book and sells. Isn't it, naturally, inferred that Murgado's statements are his own and not the scribe's? Over the years things get easier to talk about older sources feel less threatened and want to clear the air, was this the motivation of Mr. Murgado?

My question for Mr. Murgado's son is: have you ever filed a FOIPA for your father and do you have a 201 file, FBI historical files, things on deposit at NARA II or anything that might show the background of your father, what he was doing where and with whom? Has your father seen the various photos of Oswald that could be of different men, for instance the Marine photo vs. later ones? Does your father feel it's possible there were decoy LHOs? Does your father have any opinion if LHO was part of a serious counterrevolutionary effort by the Kennedy admin or just a "lookyloo informant?"

Also thank your father for clarifying for the record that the Kennedy brothers were in the thick of it. These brothers were certainly very aware and active in striking back at Castro up until the time JFK was killed IMO. The WC certainly knew about the plots and hid this as did the later HSCA, more for reasons of Nat Sec IMHO.

All of us who lost family in this secret war are still waiting for more to surface, every little piece of the puzzle helps.

[Guest Amaury Murgado]

In the larger scheme of things, what my father said and when may not be important to anyone but him. If this were a case of Joe-sixpack arguing with some buddies, no one would give it a second thought. But when its of national interest, has been unintentionally misquoted in an article and about to be discussed in a highly anticipated book, I think its fair to say that anyone would want to be represented correctly. I believe I have beat that topic to death and for all practical purposes, have laid the issue to rest. Believe me when I tell you, this whole experiance has left me wondering about the research community as a whole and made me realize even more that at the end of the day, you have to judge someone by what they do and not by what they say.

My question for Mr. Murgado's son is: have you ever filed a FOIPA for your father and do you have a 201 file, FBI historical files, things on deposit at NARA II or anything that might show the background of your father, what he was doing where and with whom?

Understanding the nature of the business, I have respected my father's privacy as he has respected mine.

Has your father seen the various photos of Oswald that could be of different men, for instance the Marine photo vs. later ones? Does your father feel it's possible there were decoy LHOs?

My father's task did not revolve around Oswald. His chance meeting was brief and a one time event. Other than the items from open source materials (media) he gathered and brought back to RFK, he never concentrated on Oswald. He has stated that it was Oswald at the apartment.

Does your father have any opinion if LHO was part of a serious counterrevolutionary effort by the Kennedy admin or just a "lookyloo informant?"

My guess, based on my conversations with him is that if he does, its not an informed opinion, but a Joe six-pack guess like everyone else's. I will thank my father on your behalf. I thank you for keeping a proper perspective on the issues at hand.

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

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

To John:

Let me see if you can "grasp" the following:

I like Professor Mellen and hope to welcome her for a book signing in Key West (provided the bookstore reopens in time-it took in eight feet of storm surge in Wilma) but let us consider the possibilities of what happened here:

1. In the interview, Murgado told her that he and deTorres did not travel to Texas with Oswald but Oswald was there when they arrived. But somehow Professor Mellen missed this rather important distinction and wrote an article for the Key West Citizen which was incorrect. After I posted it on the Forum, Amaury Murgado saw it, called Professor Mellen and she had me correct it here and she also corrected it in the final version of her book.

2. The alternative is that this important distinction (whether Murgado knew Oswald before encountering him at Odios) was not made at her meeting with Murgado but was made only after Amaury Murgado saw the article here on the Forum. If the distinction was only made after the meeting, it is quite incredible that Professor Mellen does not note the change of the story in her book, since if it happened it has a large impact on whether the entire Murgado story is credible. And, of course, it raises questions whether other people that Professor Mellen includes in her book also changed their stories (or there were other indicia of dissembling) and she also fails to note the reasons to disbelieve those stories.

As I understand it Angelo, his son, Gerry Hemming and his son will all state that Professor Mellen was told by Murgado was at Odios when Murgado and deTorres arrived. It is hard to understand how she missed that but I almost think the first version above is preferable (from Professor Mellen's standpoint) than the second, that a most important witness changed a very important part of his story but she failed to inform her readers of the change.

I get back to your claim that I misrepresented something. Hogwash. I never claimed that Professor Mellen personally vouched for the Murgado story. How could she? She was not there. However, she published his story in her book without noting she had any personal reason (e.g. his demeanor or evasiveness) to doubt it. I would think, for instance, if she was troubled by Murgado's demeanor and had serious reservations about his story, she would either not include it in her book or would at a minimum note her reservations. That is journalistic integrity.

I do not think Professor Mellen will state that she doubted Murgado's story from the get-go but nonetheless put it in her book without noting why she doubted it. Else, how many other interviews did she include without noting that she personally found the interviewee less than credible?

Do you contend that Professor Mellen now disbelieves what Mr. Murgado told her? I think the most reasonable assumption is that Professor Mellen had no observable reasons (e.g. his demeanor or the fact that he changed his story) to doubt what Mr. Murgado told her.

Edited November 11, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Gerry Hemming]

John wrote:

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

To John:

Let me see if you can "grasp" the following:

I like Professor Mellen and hope to welcome her for a book signing in Key West (provided the bookstore reopens in time-it took in eight feet of storm surge in Wilma) but let us consider the possibilities of what happened here:

1. In the interview, Murgado told her that he and deTorres did not travel to Texas with Oswald but Oswald was there when they arrived. But somehow Professor Mellen missed this rather important distinction and wrote an article for the Key West Citizen which was incorrect. After I posted it on the Forum, Amaury Murgado saw it, called Professor Mellen and she had me correct it here and she also corrected it in the final version of her book.

2. The alternative is that this important distinction (whether Murgado knew Oswald before encountering him at Odios) was not made at her meeting with Murgado but was made only after Amaury Murgado saw the article here on the Forum. If the distinction was only made after the meeting, it is quite incredible that Professor Mellen does not note the change of the story in her book, since if it happened it has a large impact on whether the entire Murgado story is credible. And, of course, it raises questions whether other people that Professor Mellen includes in her book also changed their stories (or there were other indicia of dissembling) and she also fails to note the reasons to disbelieve those stories.

As I understand it Angelo, his son, Gerry Hemming and his son will all state that Professor Mellen was told by Murgado was at Odios when Murgado and deTorres arrived. It is hard to understand how she missed that but I almost think the first version above is preferable (from Professor Mellen's standpoint) than the second, that a most important witness changed a very important part of his story but she failed to inform her readers of the change.

I get back to your claim that I misrepresented something. Hogwash. I never claimed that Professor Mellen personally vouched for the Murgado story. How could she? She was not there. However, she published his story in her book without noting she had any personal reason (e.g. his demeanor or evasiveness) to doubt it. I would think, for instance, if she was troubled by Murgado's demeanor and had serious reservations about his story, she would either not include it in her book or would at a minimum note her reservations. That is journalistic integrity.

I do not think Professor Mellen will state that she doubted Murgado's story from the get-go but nonetheless put it in her book without noting why she doubted it. Else, how many other interviews did she include without noting that she personally found the interviewee less than credible?

Do you contend that Professor Mellen now disbelieves what Mr. Murgado told her? I think the most reasonable assumption is that Professor Mellen had no observable reasons (e.g. his demeanor or the fact that he changed his story) to doubt what Mr. Murgado told her.

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

GARBLED YET ONE MORE TIME !!

"....As I understand it Angelo, his son, Gerry Hemming and his son will all state that Professor Mellen was told by Murgado was at Odios when Murgado and deTorres arrived. It is hard to understand how she missed that but I almost think the first version above is preferable (from Professor Mellen's standpoint) than the second, that a most important witness changed a very important part of his story but she failed to inform her readers of the change...."

In the living room, only Mellen, Angelo, Felipe Hemming and I were present [NOT Amaury]. Angelo clearly stated that he and "Benny' arrived on "one" of many occasions to find their "subject of interest" already seated inside Sylvia's apartment. LHO left, they remained for a while, then they left. No indication was given whether "others" continued to surveill the "subject of interest"!! They remained drinking Cuban coffee and cold water. Angelo did not want to give any further details of the Op !!

Angelo is a expert chef, and later, while cooking, bouncing around the kitchen where we sat, he once again covered the singular fact that: LHO was seated inside Sylvia's abode when he and Benny arrived. He refused to expand upon whether they had surveilled, and thereafter folowed LHO there, or were genuinely surprised at LHO's presence when they entered. He refused to expand upon this scenario, even while we enjoyed an excellent Cuban meal.

My son was quite disturbed at her methods. And once back at the hotel in Coral Gables, and quite past my bedtime -- made reference to said techniques. She accused him of being an "anti-intellectual" -- and I intervened to halt any further discussion of anything that night. My son has years of experience working with VIP security organizations. He currently is the director of operations for the county-wide division of a security firm

Moreover, she was later perturbed that I had visited with my partner [and "Best-Man" at my wedding 42 years ago] without first informing her. I arrived at Davy's [H. K. Davis] completely unannounced , and without having called him from North Carolina. He was watering his lawn as we arrived and parked the SUV. He was totally surprised at our arrival !! Nobody was ever told of Joan mellen's busines. Gratz was ONLY informed after I had returned home to Fayetteville, and explained that we didn't meet with him because we "ran-out-of-time" !!

My purpose was to convince Davy to give a rare interview. Over supper I told him that Professor Joan Mellen was in town, and might want to speak with him. He responded: "...Oh...she already caled me.."

I asked him if he would speak with her, and he stated "...No problem...I already told her so.."

Why she was perturbed that I would visit Davy after 5 years of absence is beyond my ken !!

Angelo never changed one part of his very limited explication. And Amaury later heard exactly what Angelo had previosly said, after we howled about incidents which had happened during the battles against the Sandinistas [1979]; and which Amaury, nor his wife, had ever heard before. And were sure as hell much more entertaining than the LHO crap !!

I got Davy to show my son Felipe, the photo album of the "Papa Doc" Haiti Operation, which has never seen the light of day !! And we howled once again at the [Port au Prince] U.S. Consul's federal court testimony of the multiple bombing runs over the Presidential Palace -- and the landing at Grand Bahama US Air Force Base with a bullet holed and leaking airplane !!

"No good deed shall go unpunished" -- Alfred E. Neuman ?? Who the hell gives a xxxx !!

GPH

_______________________

[Tim Gratz]

Gerry's post makes rather clear what happened in the interview, I think.

Gerry, Amaury: Angelo and Benny had visited Silvia on more than one occasion? Did I read Gerry's post correctly?

Edited November 11, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Mr. Murgado:

Many thanks for posting here, and for the patience and grace you've displayed. A few comments that might help place things in perspective:

Any person who comes forward with information decades after so significant a crime must expect a certain degree of skepticism. This is particularly true of this crime, if for no other reason than the emergence over the years of so many people making so many provocative claims about their personal participation in the event, or insider knowledge of it. As I'm sure you're aware, not all of these people turned out to be credible. The unfortunate fallout of this for your father is that his latter-day statements will be challenged by people like me, who are anxious not to be suckered yet again, and who wish to ensure that anything of this nature that enters the received history of the event is as accurate as possible. [i am less concerned about the contretemps over what Ms. Mellen may have understood and reported in the article, versus the book. What is important is the testimony currently on offer.]

A classic hallmark of those seeking to falsely insert themselves into an historical event is cleaving to already established "facts." As you know, the Odio sisters both alleged that Oswald arrived with their two Latin visitors. Were your father attempting to falsely insinuate himself into that circumstance, I'm certain he would have simply reiterated that point. Instead, he has drawn an important distinction, which I think is ultimately to his credit. Although it casts an entirely different light on the Odio family, and suggests a greater familiarity with Oswald than either of the Odios has previously admitted, this is an important point to remember.

Of far greater interest to me, however, are a few points yet to be addressed here. As you may be aware, in his book "The Man Who Knew Too Much," author Dick Russell quoted Richard Nagell on the topic of the two men who visited the Odio home. Far from simply maintaining a watchful eye upon the Cuban exile community, it is alleged that these two men also travelled to California and attempted to ingratiate themselves with a local leftist named Vaughn Marlowe, with the purported intent of framing him for a forthcoming attempt upon the President's life during a visit there. If you can, perhaps you'd be so kind as to ask your father if he has any knowledge of this incident, and give us the benefit of any clarification he may be able to offer on Nagell's assertions. Any number of possibilities may explain this circumstance, but it would be most valuable to inquisitive persons here to have his first-hand comments on the matter.

Nagell seems to have been briefed on Leopoldo and Angel, and tasked with keeping an eye upon them, although he never did divulge to Dick Russell who had provided the briefing and ordered him to surveill their activities. Again, it is impossible to know for certain who motivated Nagell in this, as he was himself unsure whose bidding he was doing by this time. If it were, for a hypothetical example, CIA who gave Nagell this mission, we would have one CIA proxy keeping close tabs upon two other men who had been CIA proxies in the past. If it turned out that Nagell's instructions were given by someone connected to Cuban or Soviet intelligence, as Nagell himself suspected at various points, an entirely different scenario is suggested. Did your father know Richard Nagell, or ever suspect that he was being tailed by Nagell?

If we assume that we now know the identities of Leopoldo and Angel, it is clear that both men had a relationship with CIA well prior to any encounter with Oswald. The inferences we would draw from this would clearly implicate CIA in having an interest in Oswald and/or the Odios. However, the fact that your father seemed to be operating with RFK's imprimatur casts the entire episode in a different light, and raises a variety of new and different questions. Knowing the mutual suspicion with which the Kennedy White House and CIA viewed each other, particularly by that point in time, it becomes important to know, for example, whether Leopoldo was also acting on RFK's behalf, or whether Leopoldo and Angel - although acting in concert on this occasion - may have been serving different interests. Can your father offer any additional insights into this?

Did your father ever use the alias surname of 'Rangel' or 'Wrangel?' Was he ever connected in any way with an attempted bombing of the Cuban embassy in Mexico City? Did he ever encounter a man using the name 'Bishop' [whether "Maurice" or some other given name is less important]? Has your father ever spoken of pre-assassination events that transpired in a shop called the Parrot Jungle? Can you offer us any insight into why your father decided to now finally disclose what he knows, and why he may have waited so long to do so?

I apologize in advance for blitzing you with so many questions, but your father has given us a rare opportunity to learn something from the horse's mouth, and thereby perhaps saving us from appearing - once again - like a horse's ass.

Speaking for myself alone, please extend to your father my gratitiude for his willingness to disclose what he knows, and accept my compliments to you for your composure and patience in dealing with us on these important, but thorny issues.

[Guest Amaury Murgado]

Gerry, Amaury: Angelo and Benny had visited Silvia on more than one occasion? Did I read Gerry's post correctly?

I was not at the interview. I will have to defer that question to the ones that were.

1. In the interview, Murgado told her that he and deTorres did not travel to Texas with Oswald but Oswald was there when they arrived. But somehow Professor Mellen missed this rather important distinction and wrote an article for the Key West Citizen which was incorrect. After I posted it on the Forum, Amaury Murgado saw it, called Professor Mellen and she had me correct it here and she also corrected it in the final version of her book.

I would like to make it clear that I have no quarrel with Professor Mellen in this regard. The matter was addressed correctly and fairly, with both sides of the issue represented. That had been my goal throughout this incident. Any apparent “rubs” have not been with her, as my one concern was resolved long ago. My rubs are with people who claim to be searching for the truth but in actuality are just promoting their own agendas. Agendas only serve inhibit the search and cloud the truth once found.

[Dawn Meredith]

I have been keeping Robert Blakey informed of the evidence that has been emerging about Murgado. Hopefully, he will eventually post on this matter.

I have just had this email from Robert Blakey: "Thanks for sending the material. My life is such that I don't have time to go into things of this sort."

No surprise there, John. Blakey was brought into HSCA to do a WC re-run, imo.

Dawn

[Harry J.Dean]

Mr. Murgado:

Many thanks for posting here, and for the patience and grace you've displayed. A few comments that might help place things in perspective:

Any person who comes forward with information decades after so significant a crime must expect a certain degree of skepticism. This is particularly true of this crime, if for no other reason than the emergence over the years of so many people making so many provocative claims about their personal participation in the event, or insider knowledge of it. As I'm sure you're aware, not all of these people turned out to be credible. The unfortunate fallout of this for your father is that his latter-day statements will be challenged by people like me, who are anxious not to be suckered yet again, and who wish to ensure that anything of this nature that enters the received history of the event is as accurate as possible. [i am less concerned about the contretemps over what Ms. Mellen may have understood and reported in the article, versus the book. What is important is the testimony currently on offer.]

A classic hallmark of those seeking to falsely insert themselves into an historical event is cleaving to already established "facts." As you know, the Odio sisters both alleged that Oswald arrived with their two Latin visitors. Were your father attempting to falsely insinuate himself into that circumstance, I'm certain he would have simply reiterated that point. Instead, he has drawn an important distinction, which I think is ultimately to his credit. Although it casts an entirely different light on the Odio family, and suggests a greater familiarity with Oswald than either of the Odios has previously admitted, this is an important point to remember.

Of far greater interest to me, however, are a few points yet to be addressed here. As you may be aware, in his book "The Man Who Knew Too Much," author Dick Russell quoted Richard Nagell on the topic of the two men who visited the Odio home. Far from simply maintaining a watchful eye upon the Cuban exile community, it is alleged that these two men also travelled to California and attempted to ingratiate themselves with a local leftist named Vaughn Marlowe, with the purported intent of framing him for a forthcoming attempt upon the President's life during a visit there. If you can, perhaps you'd be so kind as to ask your father if he has any knowledge of this incident, and give us the benefit of any clarification he may be able to offer on Nagell's assertions. Any number of possibilities may explain this circumstance, but it would be most valuable to inquisitive persons here to have his first-hand comments on the matter.

Nagell seems to have been briefed on Leopoldo and Angel, and tasked with keeping an eye upon them, although he never did divulge to Dick Russell who had provided the briefing and ordered him to surveill their activities. Again, it is impossible to know for certain who motivated Nagell in this, as he was himself unsure whose bidding he was doing by this time. If it were, for a hypothetical example, CIA who gave Nagell this mission, we would have one CIA proxy keeping close tabs upon two other men who had been CIA proxies in the past. If it turned out that Nagell's instructions were given by someone connected to Cuban or Soviet intelligence, as Nagell himself suspected at various points, an entirely different scenario is suggested. Did your father know Richard Nagell, or ever suspect that he was being tailed by Nagell?

If we assume that we now know the identities of Leopoldo and Angel, it is clear that both men had a relationship with CIA well prior to any encounter with Oswald. The inferences we would draw from this would clearly implicate CIA in having an interest in Oswald and/or the Odios. However, the fact that your father seemed to be operating with RFK's imprimatur casts the entire episode in a different light, and raises a variety of new and different questions. Knowing the mutual suspicion with which the Kennedy White House and CIA viewed each other, particularly by that point in time, it becomes important to know, for example, whether Leopoldo was also acting on RFK's behalf, or whether Leopoldo and Angel - although acting in concert on this occasion - may have been serving different interests. Can your father offer any additional insights into this?

Did your father ever use the alias surname of 'Rangel' or 'Wrangel?' Was he ever connected in any way with an attempted bombing of the Cuban embassy in Mexico City? Did he ever encounter a man using the name 'Bishop' [whether "Maurice" or some other given name is less important]? Has your father ever spoken of pre-assassination events that transpired in a shop called the Parrot Jungle? Can you offer us any insight into why your father decided to now finally disclose what he knows, and why he may have waited so long to do so?

I apologize in advance for blitzing you with so many questions, but your father has given us a rare opportunity to learn something from the horse's mouth, and thereby perhaps saving us from appearing - once again - like a horse's ass.

Speaking for myself alone, please extend to your father my gratitiude for his willingness to disclose what he knows, and accept my compliments to you for your composure and patience in dealing with us on these important, but thorny issues.

RCD

Well stated as always,and extremely important to all concerned.

My thanks to you.

Harry

[Gerry Hemming]

Gerry's post makes rather clear what happened in the interview, I think.

Gerry, Amaury: Angelo and Benny had visited Silvia on more than one occasion? Did I read Gerry's post correctly?

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

GRATZ:

Quit playing at being the "cub reporter", looking for the "big scoop" -- which might include a photograph of Clark Kent getting naked in a small telephone booth; whilst he changes into his "Big "S" pajama tights with "cod-piece" prominently displayed !! [a-la "Shrub" in his "G-suit" carrier-trap photo Op]

Just keep handing those keys out to the fairies for their trysts !!

Once again, "I" made reference to more than one visit by the BA2506 "Duo", NOT Angelo. He absolutely refuses to expand any further upon scenarios involving Sylvia. Can you possibly surmise WHY ??!! Take a gigantic wild "Conch Republic" guess.

This IS Sylvia's private business, and would open up her coached testimony/interviews to voyeuristic intrusions. While it sometimes appears so, this "Educational Forum" is NOT a "Nat'l Inquirer" styled tabloid or Jerry Springer/Geraldo Rivera/Maury Povich/Cristina, et al. "dirty laundry" Television series !!

Tell me, old bean -- do they at least have a minimal law library at your Monroe County courthouse ?? Or did Ivan, Katrina, Wilma, etc. reduce it to moldering and dusty debris ?? Get thee to a nun...er..law library lad. Regardless of how much of Sylvia's statements were under oath, the Martha Stewart, and current "Scooter" Libby case -- should already have provided incentive enough to once again visit the case reporters, sheperds, and the U.S. Code (annotated).

Should she "contradict" -- or in any way, change those prior statements to "federal officers" [circa 1964 & 1978] -- the statute of limitations is forthwith & posthaste abated. And moreover, she is liable [A.D.2005 / C.E.] to be henceforth prosecuted pursuant to Title 18 US Code, section 1001 - as amended by the "P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act"

Case law shall tutor you on the facts, such as: Making misrepresentations [not even lies are required] or later contradictory statements, especially when done while NOT under oath -- to a federal officer in the lawful performance of his duty -- carries very heavy felony criminal penalties under the amended "Sentencing Guidelines" !!

Can't take NO for an answer ?? Exactly what part of "Bugger off, Mate" don't you understand ??!!

Angelo can't "fill-in-the-gaps" or "Kevin Bacon-connect-the-dots", should he even want to. He was compartmented. Slide on your Capt. Midnight decoder ring, those old cardboard "3-D" theater goggles, mute the television that is now showing "Unsolved Mysteries" -- and engage the gear-box to your brain. READY ?? Benny was loaned to the RFK project from the Siragusa element.

By subtle suggestion ??, he MAY have been induced to invite Benny along for the ride -- why ?? The very same reasons I brought Benny under our Parabellum firearms license during 1972 -- and then later encouraged WerBell to employ him directly out of M.A.C. -- at the Powder Springs, Georgia "Farm".

He engineered the first big sales of WerBell equipment to the infamous Miguel Nazar, Chief of the Morelos, Mexico State/Federal police. The weapons were put to immediate use: terminating Rojas [the guerrilla chief who succeeded Padre Luciano] and a cadre of North Korean Army instructors who had been training the Mexican insurgents!! The insurgency had exploded in numbers subsequent to the 1968 Plaza Massacre !! Everybody was immediately very happy, on the Gringo and Mex-Fascist side of the hill that is !!

He is CONNECTED !! He has vast connections, especially with the fascist right wing government and private entities all over the Western Hemisphere. He and his brother Carlos had been decorated by Siragusa, Anslinger, et al. of the FBN, and later by BNND, ODALE, and after 1973, DEA.

Benny's assigned directives were obviously on a different tangent that Angelo's -- and it wasn't Angelo's prerogative to inquire about or report same to RFK, because RFK already knew !!

McCone had sat back and centered his attentions upon the DDI side of Langley, and ceded the DDP/DDO Clandestine Service's W/H Ops totally to RFK. [according to my previously employed by McCone uncles; but what the hell would THEY know ??!!] JJA was on the fringes of the "loop", supplying CI briefings to the SGA

reps who reported same to RFK.

Much of JJA's Intel came from the Mossad -- especially where MI-6 didn't know xxxx, even despite the fact that their Canadian [diplo-covered] agents continued to maintain a formidable presence in Havana.

Garrison begrudgingly admitted to me [June 1967] that he had info very few of RFK's activities; and the only way he could save Marcello's little ass from Walter Sheridan's "sudden-swift-sword" -- was to "appear" to be in a position to compromise RFK !! Remember ?? Me, Hall, Howard, Seymour, and most of the tiny Key Deer on No Name were "genuine" bad guys in his 1967 "movie" road show -- thus HE could TRUST us; hell we also were mob connected. No Name was so "Mobbed-up" we ate sphagetti 3 times a day, and practiced kissing rings [and a few asses] !!

Marcello had done a BIG favor for RFK's reps with the Trujillo job; and he believed that he was owed. "Little Man" had been set-up by the left-coast mob via the Cellini boys -- which made him just one more "patsy" for the sponsors of the DP hit [Whomever the hell they might BE ??!!]. Martino eventually found himself in the very same fix !! Pawley found himself similarly situated. The RFK sword of Damocles was re-hung during mid-1966 -- when he emerged from his self-pity funk and began jousting at windmills with a heavily bankrolled vengeance.

ALL of the "Patsies" started xxxxting in their pants, Hoffa dropped the biggest sequence of pointy-turds !!

[let me know when you have devoted more time to the books rather than the keyboard -- save for serious googling !!]

Chairs, [Fish & Chips]

GPH

______________________

[Steve Thomas]

Gerry,

Pat:

We had flown the SAR in Charlie Bush's C-47 "Goony Bird" (Douglas DC-3 Mil/version). Davy was co-Pilot with Bush. Our routing took us from Opa-Locka, FL direct to the lawful P.O.E [Merida, Mexico]. RON'd there and flew to the island of Cozumel. 20 minutes after our landing at Cozumel, Ambassador Thomas Mann landed in the AM/Embassy-Mex-D.F. U.S.N. R4D-2 [uS Navy version of the C-47]. We flew on to Belize City, British Honduras the next day. RON'd there and then flew to Purto Barrios, Guatemala - where we were detained and flown to Guatemala City on a F.A.G. C-47. [more on that in the near term]

Amb. Mann was accompanied by CIA/COS Win Scott, 2 WH-4 JM/WAVE -DDP Officers, and 4 Marine embassy guards "M.S.G.s" [who also were CIA assets], one of whom had spent 2 weeks with me in Havana after LHO's visit there during April 1959.

If you see this, could you expand on LHO's visit to Cuba in April, 1959?

Thanks,

Steve Thomas

[John Simkin]

De Torres set up a lot of hits, and the problem was that they mostly favored Fidel's people. He approached me to take out Torriente for $25K, but I said that domestic work on noncombatants wasn't my line -- and moreover, I questioned exactly what was, and who had, the beef against this guy ??

He did NOT call Sylvia ever, and Angelo never hinted at same. Mellen alleges that the call was made behind Murgado's back. Who is the source. Not one of the compartmented guys & gals on the Odio matter have ever talked to anybody, save their "cutouts" to RFK's teams. These folks refused to discuss these matters with anybody else but me [and on a limited basis]. They didn't even want to speak with others they knew or suspected to be amongst the compartmented elements. And they dogmatically and absolutely refused to talk to talk to any reporter, writer -- even if the party was from the CIA/I.G.s office, and especially not with any CIA elements !!

So where does this "Bernie called back to Sylvia" really come from ??!!

The inside scoop of Sylvia, et al. and especially any relationship with a young priest -- can't be clearly answered, not by her or the others. And moreover, she wouldn't be interested in finding out either !! Even when people believe that they are participating in something patriotic and noble -- when the final results are kept secret, most non-operators feel used -- and/or betrayed. They have a hard time grasping that it is safer for all concerned -- NOT to know intricate details. However, they sure as hell feel that it is not normal when when the "Mushroom" syndrome arrives.

De Torres taking on a JFK type task, not likely -- even if it was a logistics, commo, or coordinator tasking, he likes living too well -- and he would avoid an Op which either might go sour, or as happens in the drug trade, you expect to be paid in Silver [Plata] but in the end you are paid in Plomo [lead] !!

When an asset doesn't have a clue as to what is really going on, later on and down the road, they lose interest in finding out !! Discovering that you have been "used" is a bitter experience.

[Twyman shed tears when he got that kind of feeling about me and the teams -- while I thought he was trying to say: "...welcome home soldier...you've earned it" -- but that just wasn't the case at all !!]]

Mellen wouldn't take NO for an answer, and just couldn't [or wouldn't] comprehend that most of these folks have no interest in rehashing the unknown/uncertain past. This is primarily due to a fear that: they will be linked to something bad, or worse, discover that they had been used like a goat. And they sure as hell don't want those close to them to discover their past [good or bad]. It causes rifts, jealousies, and recriminations within the extended family -- especially when there exist distinct opposing beliefs.

Angelo is of the same mindset as the rest, and if I hadn't believed that it was time to set history straight, and give some overdue credit -- I would have never pounded him to open up just a little bit. Only on two occasions has he ever done so. Now look at what the response has been. A bunch of "Bookies"; who have never been there nor done that. "Talking the Talk, without ever having even been close to The Walk !!"

Don't bother asking a veteran grunt; they don't talk "outside of class" -- and operators -- If you ever find a real one, he/she won't be a conversant one.

That is just the way it is -- I learned that at a very young age, and have since instilled much of it in my kids.

Most of what is in print, including what is at NARA is "Legend" and "backstop" files !! CYA flows through the blood of the Intel Community -- when it clots, we get 9/11s !!

I have taken this quote from another thread. I think it raises a lot of issues. As Gerry points out, what motive would Angel Murgado have for coming forward with this story. As Gerry says: "When an asset doesn't have a clue as to what is really going on, later on and down the road, they lose interest in finding out !! Discovering that you have been "used" is a bitter experience."

Gerry, would you care to tell us more about De Torres' "hits"? Did any involve people who had stories to tell about the assassination? Is it possible he was involved in the death of Ed Collins?

[Tim Gratz]

John is suggesting that Mr. deTorres belonged to the Witness Unprotection Program.

[John Simkin]

I have posted Sylvia Odio's testimony before the Warren Commission and the relevant section of the House Select Committee on Assassinations report.

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

Members can use these two accounts to make sense of the new evidence put forward by Angel Murgado.

[William Turner]

Hello Bill Turner, a true Friend of JFK, and one of my personal heros.

I reading Joan Mellon's "Farewll to Justice" I expected her to have an attitude towards some of those who undermined Garrison's investigation, and to pinpoint the press that was bought off and the infiltrators who disrupted justice, but I was kind of surprised at some of her insinuations, especially towards Bill Turner.

In calling attention to Edgar Eugene Bradley, Carl MacIntyre's California assistant, Turner investigaged a legitimate suspect, and Garrison indicted him, but Mellen says, "...Neither Ivon nor Alcock would have been capable of the incompetence volunteers William Turner and 'Bill Boxley' now exhibited...No agreater disservice was done to Jim Garrison's work than Turner's and Boxley's targeting of Edgar Eugene Bradley..."

(p. 264)

There are official documents that reflect the fact and Mellen herself speculates that Edgar Eugene Bradley was mistaken or confused with Eugene Hale Brading - aka Jim Braden - who was taken into custody as a suspicous person at Dealey Plaza, and MacInytre was certainly a major operatior (more on that if requested), and Turner was certainly justified to investigate him.

I'd like to know Bill Turner's response to Mellen's book.

Also, Bill Turner's investigation into the CIA ship "Rex" is really significant and I'd like to call attention to that line of inquiry specifically, and all of the great work he's done in general. One of the first articles I read on the JFK Assassiantion was by Bill Turner in Ramparts, about the New Orleans angles, so I guess I can blame him for sparking my interest in this subject.

Bill Kelly - A friend of Bill Turner.

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

Over the years that Joan Mellen researched "Farewell to Justice," she was in repeated contact with me in person, by phone and e-mail. In addition to interviewing me on a myriad of subjects, she sought my opinion and analysis and introductions to my contacts. Through all this interface she never asked me about my role in the Edgar Eugene Bradley case. Since I have a high regard for Joan, I would prefer to think that this was an inadvertant ommision. When she describes Bill Boxley and myself as incompetent volunteers who did a disservice to Garrison's work, she doesn't know what she is talking about.

The facts are these: On a Sunday morning JG called me at my Mill Valley home. He was staying at an airport hotel in Los Angeles and wanted me to catch a plane so we could "brainstorm" some things. One of them, it turned out, was the variance in height between the "Oswald" in the Soviet Union and the American one. As I was prepasring to fly back to San Francisco, JG asked if I would accompany Boxley, who was with him, on some interviews the ffollowing day. I agreed to go along because it is desirable to have two on interviews and there was no one else available in Los Angeles.

The interviews were of Carole Adylotte and Tom Thornhill, two local right-wingers who had contacted JG's office to level charges against Bradley that he was complicit in the JFK assassination. Boxley had with him the memos memorializing phone contacts with Adylotte and Thornhill, and we proceeded to interview them separately. They added some details to what the memos said, and strongly recommended we talk to Dennis Mower of the paramilitary California Rangers to verify their stories. We went through a screening process and were led to Mower in a motel room in Lancaster, in the desert. Mower tossed his handgun on the bed and demanded that we do the same. Boxley complied, but I was unarmed.

When we returned to JG's hotel suite, Boxley read from his notes of the three interviews (I hadn't taken any notes). Neither Boxley nore I made any recommendation, although I assumed that at a later date additional investigation would be conducted, including an interview of the suspect. Having been gone three days without a change of clothes or razor or toothbrush, with my family probably wondering where the hell I was, I left immediately for the airport. As I was gong out the door JG was on the phone with, I believe, Jim Alcock. It wasn't until I got back home that I heard on TV that JG had filed charges against Bradley in Orleans Parish and would sekk his extradition.

I can assure you, Bill, that JG did not mistake Edgar Eugene Bradley for Jim Braden or anyone else.