John Simkin Posted November 16, 2005 Author Share Posted November 16, 2005 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. I am sure this is usually true. However, there are times when you do reveal a great deal. For example: 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 !! Isn't this an example of you talking outside of class? How can you be so sure that De Torres did not call back Sylvia? I am also interested in your comment "These folks refused to discuss these matters with anybody else but me". Who are these folks? Why would they only talk to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Hemming Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 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. I am sure this is usually true. However, there are times when you do reveal a great deal. For example: 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 !! Isn't this an example of you talking outside of class? How can you be so sure that De Torres did not call back Sylvia? I am also interested in your comment "These folks refused to discuss these matters with anybody else but me". Who are these folks? Why would they only talk to you? ------------------------------------ John: I am not that familiar with Brit metaphors/slang -- and I realize that in some English speaking societies, what we Americans spout quite often is sometimes misunderstood elsewhere. For instance, in a different thread, I "rapp'd" about how in Mexico: A neighhood [or urban/suburban] district is styled as a "Colonia". While in Cuba, that ver same type of locale is styled as a "Barrio". A "Barrio" in Mexico is slang for a whorehouse. Whilst in the Philippines, a "Barrio" is a village. "Talking Shop": In police, military Intel, etc. slang -- means discussing past, current or future "activities" in some detailed manner. With the police, if it pertains to "snitches" [CIs - confidential informants] this information is routinely kept just as compartmented as it is in the military, and Intel communities !! An open discussion of just "your" snitch's activities -- beyond a "need-to-know" basis; may well endanger that informant's future activities, or even his/her life !! [As was the case with my niece -- who was "executed" by members of a Mexican drug cartel] "Talking Out of School": This is the most egregious violation of compartmented information/intel; in that it is a knowing and willing disclosure of confidential/secret information/intel to other persons !! And especially to those who have been purposefully or deliberately excluded from said knowledge base !! In the realm of police operations, this is styled as "burning-your-snitch". Oftentimes a corrupt/murderous cop will do this to silence the singular witness/co-perp' to his crimes and/or corruption -- and is intended as a device which will surely get the CI murdered, and usually by the very folks he is snitching on. An "Operator" is guilty of "T.O.S." when he deliberately reveals classified and/or compartmented information to persons who: Have "no-need-to-know" -- or worse, persons who are known to be "chatty" -- or worse, are verified hostile CIs or agents !! With respect to "..why somebody would ONLY speak with ME.." indeed smacks of being a rude and insulting ploy. The very kind which might encourage me to describe my relationship with specific [subject matter] "persons-of-interest". Just a vague description of said relationships is usually sufficient for those skilled [in news or intelligence gathering] persons to thereafter, quickly identify said folks. It may well just be the person who gets angry at a breach of trust. Or it might be a family member who is unable to stifle curiosity, and therein lies the risk of "outsiders" reporting same to hostile elements/entites. [as was the case with Ms. Odio, who thought Mrs. Connell was "just" a friend; and didn't realize that she had been "planted" as an FBI "S.C.C.I."] Why am I so sure that "Benny" didn't make a call to Sylvia ?? Because her telephone was tapped by multiple agencies, including FBI, US Customs, ATTU, etc. !! Moreover, "Benny's" every move was being surveilled by CI folks. I DO KNOW who called Sylvia during that same period, and with reference to J.U.R.E. matters -- and I will shortly get into that unique area of inquiry, just as soon as I verify the NARA stamps on some documents which were proffered to me recently !! Y'all don't wanna see Fitzgerald come chasing me down now, or do you ??!! Am I to presume that you are that deficient in "tradecraft"?? Most of us who have developed a reaonable modicum of "Intel Savvy" [within what that term represents] -- would take this as an insult, and indicating one's "lower cognitive abilities" !! I am reminded of the fellow member who so boldly asked: "...WHO are the MONEY MEN..??!!" Firstly, I had verified by Tuesday night [November 19th, 1963] that: NOT one of our "financiers/sponsors" had called for a meeting in Dallas that week !! Upon their making even further inquiries; ascertained that absolutely nobody [connected within their circle] had even heard of such a "CALL" !! Giving that member the "benefit-of-the-doubt", and recognizing that said member is quite articulate -- I presumed the query to be a joke and/or -- at least a humorous ploy. That I would "give-out" specific names/identities, or even occupations -- to total strangers is ludicrous. And moreover, after the subsequent "bandying-about" of accusatory allegations directed at some of the few "subjects-of-interest", whom I have named over the years -- You've gotta be outta yer mind!! I determined to my satisfaction that Sturgis, et al., were not "Once Again" -- "going-behind-my-back". After months of Sturgis, et al. making repeated attempts at ascertaining who were our sponsors; which oftentimes were simply centered on"suckering" money out of the gullible right-wingers. However, I suspected [and was later proven to be true] -- this activity was something that the FBI and Trafficante had urged Sturgis, Hall, et al. -- to accomplish during most of that two year period [1962-63] !! Let's get real folks. Do your homework, and stifle yourselves, especially when presented with those tempting shortcuts to "no-where-land". Chairs, GPH __________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Carroll Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 De Torres set up a lot of hits, and the problem was that they mostly favored Fidel's people.... 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.Why am I so sure that "Benny" didn't make a call to Sylvia ?? Because her telephone was tapped by multiple agencies, including FBI, US Customs, ATTU, etc. !! I can't help but wonder what changed, such that Gerry decided, after years of interviewing with Joan Mellen, to e-mail her the assertion that CIA agent Steve Czukas arranged the Odio visit. Also, a direct confirmation from Gerry that he personally witnessed personal contact between Oswald and RFK would be helpful in determining what to make of Mellen's tome. T.C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Hemming Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 De Torres set up a lot of hits, and the problem was that they mostly favored Fidel's people.... 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.Why am I so sure that "Benny" didn't make a call to Sylvia ?? Because her telephone was tapped by multiple agencies, including FBI, US Customs, ATTU, etc. !! I can't help but wonder what changed, such that Gerry decided, after years of interviewing with Joan Mellen, to e-mail her the assertion that CIA agent Steve Czukas arranged the Odio visit. Also, a direct confirmation from Gerry that he personally witnessed personal contact between Oswald and RFK would be helpful in determining what to make of Mellen's tome. T.C. --------------------------------- My brother, and some of my other associates ranted "years ago" that: I was wasting my time with this "Girlie Groupy" [1969] of Garrison -- not to mention my wife, and others who met her while she was here in Fayetteville a few years back. While they never will read her book, I eventually will -- and then, after a long period, might make some comments reference to said tome. Mellen stared off into space on many occasions; especially when the details were beyond her compre- hension -- and it wasn't do to my use of acronyms or "tradecraft-speak". She, like a few others [and not all females] just haven't taken the time to get to "theinside" of how things work. Which to me, always indicated a "personal crusader" agenda, as was the case with Twyman and some others. Czukas was Federal Bureau of Narcotics agent [under Siragusa]; on loan to the CIA -- which, as in dozens of other cases, [viz: Diosdado] placed him under US Customs "cover". Czukas "controlled" Bernie de Torres !! You might have to wait a while for anything further on that business. As for me "personally" dealing with RFK at that time. Negative !! We vociferously disagreed with his "hit" Fidel "obsession" -- but we were encouraged to stay in touch with those we called "The Hickory Hill Boys". My "information" comes from "reliable" sources, and these folks gave reliable insights -- time-and-time- again. NO braggadocio, and it was always dribs and drabs spread over many years. Nothing was as a result of inquiry. It mostly came out as comparisons to similar tasks being done over the following years. Sometimes a comment from a [previously compartmented] individual who was venting -- or trying to connect the dots. The more expansive comments came from operators -- who, years afterward, were THEN deep into some very risky business 'ventures", and they weren't at all sure that there would be a tomorrow. Sometimes folks don't want to go down without clearing up a few mysteries in their lives. I NEVER took advantage of their emotional situations -- just listened and remembered. THEY firmly believed that I might have some of the answers which they were so desperate to resolve. In most cases "I didn't know xxxx from shinola" -- and ultimately couldn't give "resolve" to their problems !! I have NOTHING to prove, and moreover -- the family static just gets worse for me with every stupid ass comment or remark made over the many years !! Years that I spent mostly dodging the scribblers !! You will "know" [maybe] only after I am sure that I "know". I can damn well guarantee that: There will NEVER be another Mellen ordeal in my future !! "A.J.W. Type Baiting" is a sure-fire guaranteed way to shorten my list of correspondents !! CHAIRS, GPH _______________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 My brother, and some of my other associates ranted "years ago" that: I was wasting my time with this "Girlie Groupy" [1969] of Garrison -- not to mention my wife, and others who met her while she was here in Fayetteville a few years back.While they never will read her book, I eventually will -- and then, after a long period, might make some comments reference to said tome. Mellen stared off into space on many occasions; especially when the details were beyond her compre- hension -- and it wasn't do to my use of acronyms or "tradecraft-speak". She, like a few others [and not all females] just haven't taken the time to get to "theinside" of how things work. Which to me, always indicated a "personal crusader" agenda, as was the case with Twyman and some others. Czukas was Federal Bureau of Narcotics agent [under Siragusa]; on loan to the CIA -- which, as in dozens of other cases, [viz: Diosdado] placed him under US Customs "cover". Czukas "controlled" Bernie de Torres !! You might have to wait a while for anything further on that business. As for me "personally" dealing with RFK at that time. Negative !! We vociferously disagreed with his "hit" Fidel "obsession" -- but we were encouraged to stay in touch with those we called "The Hickory Hill Boys". My "information" comes from "reliable" sources, and these folks gave reliable insights -- time-and-time- again. NO braggadocio, and it was always dribs and drabs spread over many years. Nothing was as a result of inquiry. It mostly came out as comparisons to similar tasks being done over the following years. Sometimes a comment from a [previously compartmented] individual who was venting -- or trying to connect the dots. The more expansive comments came from operators -- who, years afterward, were THEN deep into some very risky business 'ventures", and they weren't at all sure that there would be a tomorrow. Sometimes folks don't want to go down without clearing up a few mysteries in their lives. I NEVER took advantage of their emotional situations -- just listened and remembered. THEY firmly believed that I might have some of the answers which they were so desperate to resolve. In most cases "I didn't know xxxx from shinola" -- and ultimately couldn't give "resolve" to their problems !! I have NOTHING to prove, and moreover -- the family static just gets worse for me with every stupid ass comment or remark made over the many years !! Years that I spent mostly dodging the scribblers !! You will "know" [maybe] only after I am sure that I "know". I can damn well guarantee that: There will NEVER be another Mellen ordeal in my future !! "A.J.W. Type Baiting" is a sure-fire guaranteed way to shorten my list of correspondents !! CHAIRS, GPH _______________________ _________________________________ Gerry, Good post. Reasonable, plausible, etc. Thanks, Thomas _________________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted January 5, 2009 Author Share Posted January 5, 2009 Amaury Murgado has threatened me with legal action if I do not remove his membership from this forum. I have now done that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 (edited) De Torres set up a lot of hits, and the problem was that they mostly favored Fidel's people.... 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.Why am I so sure that "Benny" didn't make a call to Sylvia ?? Because her telephone was tapped by multiple agencies, including FBI, US Customs, ATTU, etc. !! I can't help but wonder what changed, such that Gerry decided, after years of interviewing with Joan Mellen, to e-mail her the assertion that CIA agent Steve Czukas arranged the Odio visit. Also, a direct confirmation from Gerry that he personally witnessed personal contact between Oswald and RFK would be helpful in determining what to make of Mellen's tome. T.C. --------------------------------- My brother, and some of my other associates ranted "years ago" that: I was wasting my time with this "Girlie Groupy" [1969] of Garrison -- not to mention my wife, and others who met her while she was here in Fayetteville a few years back. While they never will read her book, I eventually will -- and then, after a long period, might make some comments reference to said tome. Mellen stared off into space on many occasions; especially when the details were beyond her compre- hension -- and it wasn't do to my use of acronyms or "tradecraft-speak". She, like a few others [and not all females] just haven't taken the time to get to "the inside" of how things work. Which to me, always indicated a "personal crusader" agenda, as was the case with Twyman and some others. Czukas was a Federal Bureau of Narcotics agent [under Siragusa]; on loan to the CIA -- which, as in dozens of other cases, [viz: Diosdado] placed him under US Customs "cover". Czukas "controlled" Bernie de Torres !! [emphasis added by T. Graves] As for me "personally" dealing with RFK at that time. Negative !! We vociferously disagreed with his "hit" Fidel "obsession" -- but we were encouraged to stay in touch with those we called "The Hickory Hill Boys". My "information" comes from "reliable" sources, and these folks gave reliable insights -- time-and-time- again. NO braggadocio, and it was always dribs and drabs spread over many years. Nothing was as a result of inquiry. It mostly came out as comparisons to similar tasks being done over the following years. Sometimes a comment from a [previously compartmented] individual who was venting -- or trying to connect the dots. The more expansive comments came from operators -- who, years afterward, were THEN deep into some very risky business 'ventures", and they weren't at all sure that there would be a tomorrow. Sometimes folks don't want to go down without clearing up a few mysteries in their lives. I NEVER took advantage of their emotional situations -- just listened and remembered. THEY firmly believed that I might have some of the answers which they were so desperate to resolve. In most cases "I didn't know xxxx from shinola" -- and ultimately couldn't give "resolve" to their problems !! I have NOTHING to prove, and moreover -- the family static just gets worse for me with every stupid ass comment or remark made over the many years !! Years that I spent mostly dodging the scribblers !! You will "know" [maybe] only after I am sure that I "know". I can damn well guarantee that: There will NEVER be another Mellen ordeal in my future !! "A.J.W. Type Baiting" is a sure-fire guaranteed way to shorten my list of correspondents !! CHAIRS, GPH _______________________ deleted Edited February 11, 2013 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 (edited) deleted Edited November 10, 2012 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 (edited) deleted Edited November 10, 2012 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 (edited) deleted Edited November 10, 2012 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Amaury Murgado has threatened me with legal action if I do not remove his membership from this forum. I have now done that. How very unfortunate. I was looking very forward to his responses to RCD's great questions. I have always had a lot of problems with that part, among others, in Joan's book. Amaury's assertion that she took no notes or made no tapes with his father does not sound like her at all. I am in a lot of contact with her of late regarding a book she is presently working on and she is going out of her way to be certain she is only presenting accurate information. That said I also believe that she got the entire RFK -sent- Sheridan- to destroy- Garrison completely wrong. So was hoping for more on the Murgado angle here. Very odd that the son would come here, answer a lot of questions then suddenly threaten legal action. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Thanks Tommy for bumping this today. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) deleted Edited November 10, 2012 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 On 11/9/2005 at 3:03 AM, Tim Gratz said: John it is certainly an interesting story that has developed in front of us in the past few months. Fascinating thread. And, according to Tim, it sounds like a fascinating period of time on this forum. Looks like a good place to dig around. Cheers, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 7 hours ago, Michael Clark said: Fascinating thread. And, according to Tim, it sounds like a fascinating period of time on this forum. Looks like a good place to dig around. Cheers, Michael Yes Michael, totally agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now