Post by Rob Caprio on Feb 4, 2023 21:20:17 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
spartacus-educational.com/1AASylviaOdio1.jpg
media.gq.com/photos/5582895b1177d66d68d51fa0/master/w_640%2Cc_limit/blogs-the-feed-2013-11-22-lee-harvey-oswald-changing-the-world-jfk-blog.jpg
The.Warren Commission (WC) claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) traveled to Mexico City, Mexico, in late September 1963, but ignored another incident that occurred at the same time as he was supposedly in Mexico. The WC had the FBI check this incident out, but all they were interested in doing was discrediting it.
The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) also looked at this incident during their tenure in the late 1970s. This is a key incident as it will show that LHO was not in Mexico City as the WC claimed and it will once again show that he was either working with Cubans or he was being impersonated.
********************************************
The reason the FBI and the WC had an issue with Odio’s story was that she believed, and was corroborated by her sister, that the American who visited her apartment with the two Cuban men was LHO. This couldn’t be allowed since the WC had him on his way to Mexico City at this time. Here is what the HSCA wrote about this.
Quote on
(64)Although Mrs. Odio suggested doubts that the men were in fact member of JURE, she was certain that the American who was introduced to her as Leon Oswald was Lee Harvey Oswald. Her sister, who was in the apartment at the time of the visit by the three men, and who stated that that she saw them briefly in the hallway when answering the door, also believed that the American was Lee Harvey Oswald. By referring to the date on which she moved from her former apartment, October 1, 1963, Mrs. Odio fixed the date of the alleged visit on the Thursday or Friday immediately preceding that date, i.e., September 26 or 27. She was positive that the visit occurred prior to October 1.
(65)During the course of its investigation, however, the Commission concluded that Oswald could not have been in Dallas on the evening of either September 26 or 27, 1963. It also developed considerable evidence that he was not in Dallas at any time between the beginning of September and October 3, 1963. (HSCA V. 10, pp. 19-20)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol10/html/HSCA_Vol10_0012a.htm
Quote off
Where is this considerable evidence? It sure isn’t in the twenty-six volumes of evidence that they published. The evidence presented to show that he went to Mexico City is all false.
New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison investigated this in the 1960s and concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was impersonated as he was never there. In the 1970s the HSCA assigned a group to investigate this area and they concluded the same thing in the Lopez Report.
So if he wasn’t in Mexico City, why couldn’t he be at Odio’s apartment? Because this could lead to the area of conspiracy that is why. Furthermore, the WC needed him in Mexico City because the CIA said that he was there. They had built a scenario that involved LHO meeting with the head of assassinations in the Western Hemisphere for the Soviet Union. It was all staged to make LHO more believable as the assassin of JFK.
The WC never questioned that this visit occurred, but instead insisted LHO was not the American due to his trip to Mexico City, Mexico. Therefore, it was imperative for them to show that LHO really went to Mexico City otherwise that would leave the door wide open for saying they were wrong in their conclusion.
The WC wrote the following about this issue in their Report (WCR) on page 321.
Quote on
The Commission has examined Oswald’s known or alleged contacts and activities in an effort to ascertain whether or not he was involved in any conspiracy may be seen in the investigation it conducted as a result of the testimony given by Mrs. Silvia Odio. The Commission investigated her statements in connection with its consideration of the testimony of several witnesses suggesting that Oswald may have been seen in the company of unidentified of Cuban or Mexican background. (WCR, pp. 321-322)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0173a.htm
Quote off
The WC never questioned this visit to Mrs. Odio’s, but rather insisted the American was NOT LHO. For this to be true they had to show LHO was somewhere else, but did they? Let’s take a look at what they wrote about his whereabouts.
Quote on
During the course of its investigation, however, the Commission concluded that Oswald could not have been in Dallas on the evening of either September 26 or 27, 1963. It also developed considerable evidence that he was not in Dallas at any time between the beginning of September and October 3, 1963. (WCR, p. 322)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0173b.htm
Quote off
This claim by the WC brings up a very important question—why was LHO receiving Texas unemployment when he was NOT in the area he filed for? Part of receiving unemployment is tied to a JOB SEARCH and NOT leaving the area without notification of your departure. However, here we are to believe he was off gallivanting in New Orleans or Mexico without telling the Texas Unemployment Commission and was still getting checks without reporting any effort to find a job.
After doing a little research on this issue I see in today’s world you can use the telephone or internet to file for a claim, but back in 1963 you had to report to your local workforce center to apply for a check and provide documentation showing your attempts to find a job. These were a requirement to receive benefits. How could LHO NOT be in Dallas and still do this? Why is this important you may be asking? Because the first part of establishing LHO’s whereabouts related to him cashing an unemployment check.
Quote on
Oswald is known to have been in New Orleans as late as September 23, 1963, the date on which Mrs. Paine and Marina Oswald left New Orleans for Dallas. Sometime between 4 p.m. on September 24 and 1 p.m. on September 25, Oswald cashed an unemployment compensation check at a store in New Orleans; under normal procedures this check would not have reached Oswald’s postal box in New Orleans until at least 5 a.m. on September 25. The store at which he cashed the check did not open until 8 a.m. Therefore, it appeared that Oswald’s presence in New Orleans until sometime between 8 a.m. and 1 p.m. on September 25 was quite firmly established. (WCR, pp. 322-323)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0174a.htm
Quote off
By using the incident of the unemployment check cashing as their basis for establishing his whereabouts the WC actually opened up a can of worms in terms of the questions I asked above. They wanted us to believe that LHO was filing for unemployment in Texas, but spending time in Louisiana! They even said the check would be mailed to him OUT OF STATE to his New Orleans P.O. Box! How can one be looking for a job in Dallas, Texas, and yet, be spending time in New Orleans?
Furthermore, based on the words in this paragraph quoted, how did they determine the whereabouts of LHO from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m.? The WC simply said the store opened at 8 a.m. and how do we know LHO did not go in then and then leave New Orleans after that? Why did the WC give LHO a FIVE-HOUR block to cash one check? They also said this was “firmly established”, but I don’t see any evidence doing this.
The WC then went on to acknowledge they could NOT show any firm evidence (how refreshing) showing how LHO could have gotten from New Orleans to Houston, Texas on the first leg of his journey to Mexico’s capital. They did say however the only time they had NO idea where he was came between the 1 p.m. in New Orleans on the 25th and 2:35 a.m. on September 26 at which time a bus left Houston for Laredo, Texas. The WC concluded the only way LHO could have gone to Dallas and then onto Houston to catch the 2:35 a.m. bus for Laredo would have been by airplane, and they firmly denounced this. They wrote this short statement about that topic.
Quote on
The only public means of transportation by which Oswald could have traveled from New Orleans to Dallas in time to catch his bus from Houston to Laredo, would have been the airlines. Investigation disclosed no indication that he flew between these points. (WCR, p. 323)
Quote off
What the WC did NOT investigate, and did NOT want to consider probably, is that perhaps LHO received a flight that was NOT recorded by a traditional airline. Think of David Ferrie as he was a pilot and he flew to and from Houston a good bit. Could LHO have gotten a ride from him? By the way, when the WC mentioned its “investigation” they were referring to the one the FBI was doing for them, and they said this on the next page of their report.
Quote on
In spite of the fact that it appeared almost certain that Oswald could not have been in Dallas at the time Mrs. Odio thought he was, the Commission requested the FBI to conduct further investigation to determine the validity of Mrs. Odio's testimony. The Commission considered the problems raised by that testimony as important in view of the possibility it raised that Oswald may have had companions on his trip to Mexico. (WCR, p. 324)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0174b.htm
Quote off
Here we see that the FBI was tasked with the investigation and requested to find out validity of Mrs. Odio’s statement. By doing this, we see the WC took her testimony seriously, but did NOT act accordingly later on in regards to it. The key part of the visit is the fact that there were two other people with LHO, if it was him, and this would mean he was NOT a loner, but rather a member of a group of some kind in late September 1963, so why would he be bereft of these same people on November 22, 1963? This is a serious point, therefore, it should have been taken seriously by the WC. But was it?
Sylvia Odio testified before the WC that three men visited her apartment and one of them was named “Leon Oswald”.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell Father McKann that the name Oswald was never used in your presence by any of these men?
Mrs. ODIO. Never was used except to introduce me, and the time when they left. They did not refer to him as Oswald.
Mr. LIEBELER. But they did in fact, introduce him as Leon Oswald?
Mrs. ODIO. And I shook hands with him.
It was vital for the WC to discredit this testimony because at the time of this visit the WC had LHO on his way to Mexico City all by himself. In Commission Exhibit (CE) 3146 we see a letter from J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) to the WC, dated September 21, 1964, regarding this issue.
Quote on
On September 16, 1964, we located one Loran Eugene Hall at Johnsondale. California… He recalled meeting a Cuban woman, Mrs. Odio, who lived in a garden-type apartment at 1080 Magellan Circle, Dallas, Texas. He said that at the time of his visit he was accompanied by Lawrence Howard, a Mexican-American from East Los Angeles and William Seymour from Arizona. He denied that Lee Harvey Oswald was with him during his visit to Mrs. Odio's apartment in September, 1963.
Hall stated that William Seymour is similar in appearance to Lee Harvey Oswald and that Seymour speaks only a few words of Spanish. In connection with the revelations of Hall you will note that the name Loran Hall bears some phonetic resemblance to the name Leon Oswald... (CE 3146, p. 1)
www.historymatt.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0435b.htm
Quote off
This letter by JEH was dated just six days before the WC released their report. In it we see that JEH says upon FBI investigation it was determined that the three men were Loran Hall, Laurence Howard and William Seymour. He further stated that Hall said that Seymour had a “similar appearance” to LHO. JEH then makes the ridiculous claim that Loren Hall “bears some phonetic resemblance” to Leon Oswald. This is absurd as they sound nothing alike. Most importantly he admits that Hall said that he met with a Cuban woman named Odio.
Here is what the HSCA wrote about these issues.
Quote on
(67)On September 16, 1964, the FBI located Loran Eugene Hall in Johnsandale, Calif. Hall has been identified as a participant in numerous anti-Castro activities. He told the FBI that in September of 1963 he was in Dallas, soliciting aid in connection with anti-Castro activities. He said he had visited Mrs. Odio. He was accompanied by Lawrence Howard, a Mexican-American from East Los Angeles and one William Seymour from Arizona. He stated that Seymour is similar in appearance to Lee Harvey Oswald; he speaks only a few words of Spanish, as Mrs. Odio had testified one of the men who visited her did. While the FBI had not yet completed its investigation into this matter at the time the report went to press, the Commission has concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was not at Mrs. Odio's apartment in September of 1963.
(68)The evidence did not support the definitive character of the Warren Commission's conclusions. The Commission had based its conclusion on two points: the "considerable" evidence that Oswald could not have been in Dallas on the evening Mrs. Odio alleged she saw him; (2) the FBI's report of Loran Eugene Hall's speculation that Odio misidentified his companion, William Seymour, as Lee Harvey Oswald. (3) Although the Warren Commission Report stated that Odio "fixed" the date of the alleged Oswald visit on September 26or September 27, she actually told the FBI that she was not at all positive about the exact date, (4) and that it might have been as early as September 25.(5)
(69)The Warren Commission asserted that Oswald left New Orleans by bus for Houston, on his way to Mexico, on September 25.(6) Yet there was no documentary evidence as substantiation, and neither the bus driver nor any passenger could recall seeing Oswald on that bus.(7) In fact, Warren Commission General Counsel J. Lee Rankin asked the FBI to investigate the possibility that Oswald left New Orleans on September 24, (8) when a neighbor saw him leaving his apartment carrying two suitcases.(9) Rankin pointed out in his letter to J. Edgar Hoover that:
Marina Oswald told the Commission that her husband told her he intended to leave New Orleans the very next day following her departure on September 23, 1963. She has also indicated that he told her an unemployment check would beforwarded to Mrs. Ruth Paine's address in Irving from his post office box in New Orleans.* * * It also seems impossible to us that Oswald would have gone all the way back to the Winn-Dixie store at 4303 Magazine Street to cash the unemployment check which he supposedly picked up at the Lafayette Branch of the Post Office when he could have cashed it at Martin's Restaurant, where he had previously cashed many of his Reily checks and one unemployment check. That is particularly true if he received the check on September 25, 1963, as previously thought, and had left his apartment with his suitcases the evening before.
(70)The FBI never came up with any evidence which resolved the questions raised in Rankin's request. In sum, the Warren Commission developed no hard evidence that could substantiate the fact that Oswald was or was not in Dallas during the time period Odio said she saw him. (HSCA X, pp. 20-21)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol10/html/HSCA_Vol10_0012b.htm
Quote off
The WC would write in their report, (WCR, p. 324) these were the three men who met with Sylvia Odio. The WC wrote the following regarding the issue of LHO being one of the men at Odio’s apartment.
Quote on
While the FBI had not yet completed its investigation into this matter at the time the report went to press, the Commission has concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was not at Mrs. Odio’s apartment in September 1963. (WCR, p. 334)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0174b.htm
Quote off
Here we see the WC state unequivocally that LHO was not at Odio’s apartment at the time they said he was on his way to Mexico City. No surprise there. But what did these men say about the claim of them meeting Mrs. Odio at her apartment? Let’s look at a FBI internal security memorandum for the answer to this question.
Quote on
Seymour said Sylvia Odio was not known to him …Howard denied any contact with a Cuban woman named Odio at Dallas. (Commission Document (CD) 1553, pp. 19-20; pp. 1-2 orig.)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11948#relPageId=21&tab=page
Quote off
This report shows that neither William Seymour or Laurence Howard said that they ever met Odio. Hall is more complicated. On September 16, 1964 he was interviewed by the FBI and said the following.
Quote on
Hall recalled meeting a Cuban woman, Mrs. Odio, who lived in Apartment A… (CD 1553, p. 29)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11948#relPageId=31&tab=page
Quote off
This is what Hall initially said, but he then rescinded it. He must have contacted the FBI because on September 20, 1964, he is reinterviewed and changes his statement.
Quote on
…[Hall] advises that information furnished by him on 9/16/64 was incorrect and was furnished by error…Hall denies this Cuban woman was ever contacted by him or his group for assistance…Howard denies that he accompanied Hall to meet a Cuban refugee named Silvia Odio. (CD 1553, pp. 29-30)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11948#relPageId=32&tab=page
Quote off
These statements are important in showing that JEH provided the WC with false information. By the date of his letter (9/21/64) to the WC, JEH had access to statements made by Seymour (9/18/64); Howard (9/20/64); and Hall (9/20/64) stating that they either did not know Odio, or never met with her during the time she said that she had been visited by the three men. In other words, he just made up what suited the interest of the official narrative.
Further corroboration for Hall and Howard comes from Celio Sergio Castro Alba.
Quote on
Mr. Castro stated that the name of SILVIA ODIO or anyone named ODIO had never been mentioned to him while with Hall or Howard in Dallas. (CD 1553, p. 23; p.5 orig.)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11948#relPageId=25&tab=page
Quote off
This further confirms that the three men named as being the ones to visit Odio in late September 1963 said they did not. Furthermore, there was no evidence showing that they did. JEH willfully passed on incorrect information. For if he had made a simple mistake he had six days to fix it before the WCR came out, but he didn’t. Thus, we have to think that he purposely mislead the WC (who most likely was just as happy) and the American people.
The HSCA summed this up this way.
Quote on
(71)Although the Warren Commission stated that the FBI had not yet completed its investigation at the time its report went to press, it was only 2 days after its September 16, 1964, interview of Loran Eugene Hall that the FBI interviewed William Seymour, who denied he ever had any contact with Silvia Odio and that he had been in Dallas with Hall in September 1963. The FBI susequently confirmed the fact that Seymour was working in Florida during September 1963. On September 23, 1964, the FBI interviewed Loran Hall'sother associate, Lawrence Howard. Howard also denied he had ever contacted Silvia Odio. The FBI then went back and re-interviewed Hall who then said that he had been accompanied on his trip to Dallas not by Seymour but by a Cuban friend he knew as "Wahito" and that he no longer recalled any contact with Odio. The FBI determined that "Wahito" was Celio Sergio Castro who, when interviewed, said he had never heard of or met Silvia Odio. On October 1, 1964, the FBI showed Silvia Odio photographs of Loran Hall, William Seymour, Lawrence Howard and Celio Sergio Castro. She examined the photographs and said that none of the individuals were identical to any of the three men who had come to her apartment door in Dallas.
(72)In view of the premature character of the Warren Commission's conclusion based on the impeached Loran Hall allegation and the unresolved question of Oswald's whereabouts at the time, the Odio incident remains one of the lingering enigmas in the original assassination investigation. Unfortunately, the nature of the incident makes it, from an investigative standpoint, particularly susceptible to the erosive effects of time. The canvassing, for instance, of both pro-Castro and anti-Castro groups in Dallas, New Orleans, and Miami in search of descriptive similarities to the men who visited Odio might have been fruitful at the time; today it is impractical. The construction of a composite sketch of the individuals when their features were still fresh in Odio's memory might have provided productive evidence 15 years ago; today it is of questionable value considering the natural adulteration of recall over that period of time. A search for the car that the men were driving might have been very productive at the time; today it is useless. The committee was, therefore handicapped by the limitations of the initial investigation and the paucity of evidence developed. The valid investigative approaches remaining were distressingly limited. Nevertheless, because of the potential significance of the Odio incident to a possible conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination, the committee decided that, in addition to pursuing any substantive leads it possible could, it would also attempt to verify the record regarding Silvia Odio's credibility and the details of her allegations. (Ibid., pp. 21-22)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol10/html/HSCA_Vol10_0013a.htm
Quote off
The HSCA admitted that it was “handicapped by the limitations of the initial investigation and the paucity of evidence developed”, and yet, those that defend the WC’s conclusion insist it was a valid and good investigation. Sure. The HSCA admitted this was a significant incident and look at how it was handled by the WC and the FBI. They set out to discredit it rather than investigate it.
This one issue shows that no information or evidence from the FBI should be taken at face value as FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) would do whatever it took to keep the lie of the official narrative going. Further examples of his dishonesty were the comment of a tree blocking the view of the sniper when the presidential limousine was on Houston Street, and the fact that Hosty’s name had been removed from LHO’s notebook (V, p. 112).
Nothing Hoover said or testified to can be accepted without checking it out first.
As the HSCA said, the WC published their Report without letting the FBI finalize their Odio investigation. The WC acknowledged this in their own report too!
Quote on
The Commssion specifically requested the FBI to attempt to locate and identify the two men who Mrs. Odio stated were with the man she thought was Oswald. (1)
On September 16, 1964, the FBI located Loran Eugene Hall in Johnsandale, Calif. He told the FBI that in September 1963 he was in Dallas, soliciting aid in connection with anti-Castro activities. He said he had visited Mrs. Odio. He was accompanied by Lawrence Howard, a Mexican-American from East Los Angeles, and one William Seymour from Arizona. He stated that Seymour is similar in appearance to Lee Harvey Oswald; he speaks only a few words of Spanish, as Mrs. Odio had testified one of the men who visited her did.
While the FBI had not yet completed its investigation into this matter at the time the report went to press, the Commission has concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was not at Mrs. Odio's apartment in September 1963. (WCR, p. 324)
(1) Letter to J. Edgar Hoover, dated August 28, 1964. It is listed as Commission Exhibit (CE) 3045.
CE 3045: www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0316a.htm
Quote off
The WC left us with the claims of Loran Hall instead of actually having the FBI find this out for sure for us. Why? This is nothing but supposition, but even in that form it would show LHO was being framed as there would be NO reason for them to call William Seymour “Leon Oswald” otherwise. So even in the attempt to show this was NOT LHO at Mrs. Odio’s the WC showed LHO was being framed! Remember, the next day Mrs. Odio received a call from the one calling himself “Leopoldo” in which he told her (1) that "Leon Oswald" was a former Marine; (2) that "Oswald" was a crack marksman; (3) that "Oswald" felt that President Kennedy should have been assassinated after the Bay of Pigs; and (4) that "Oswald" was "loco" and the kind of man who could do anything, like "getting" the Cuban underground or killing Castro. There would be NO reason to do this UNLESS they were framing LHO!
This makes it apparent to me, and I would think many people, that it does NOT really matter if the real LHO was at Mrs. Odio’s or not as the seeds were planted that LHO was a looney guy who had thoughts of whacking JFK. How many other times did this occur that we have NOT heard about? I doubt this was the only person they did this too in the months leading up to November 22, 1963.
Trying to help the FBI even claimed that the name Loran Hall had “some phonetic resemblance to the name Leon Oswald.” (CE 3146, p. 2)
CE 3146:
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0436a.htm
Please. Even the WC omitted this from their report as it really stretches the imagination, but unfortunately for us the WC offered NO better explanation in their Report. There is no excuse for how the WC failed to fully investigate this and come up with a sound, and supportable explanation for this visit Mrs. Odio said occurred, and which they believed.
To leave an issue as important as this unfinished and unresolved should cause everyone who studies this case pause as it makes you wonder what else they left unfinished too. It also shows us in a nutshell that the WC was NOT about finding the truth, but rather making things fix their pre-conceived theory of LHO acting alone. It had to be shown it was LHO at all costs and this constitutes a cover-up.
Here is what Odio told the HSCA about the WC.
Quote on
(76) The committee believed it important in its investigation to examine in detail the substance of Silvia Odio's allegations as well as their credibility. One of the problems faced by the committee was Odio's negative attitude toward a governmental investigation of the Kennedy assassination. Her attitude, she said, was the result of her relationship with the Warren Commission. She expressed sharp disillusionment with the Warren Commission and said that it was obvious to her that the Commission did not want to believe her story. A committee investigator noted that her whole demeanor was "one of sharp distrust of the Government's motives. She claims she feels she was just used by the Warren Commission for their own ends and she does not want to be put in the same position." Nevertheless, after contact was established by the committee, Odio's cooperation with the committee was excellent, and she voluntarily submitted to interviews and, subsequently, sworn testimony. (Ibid., p. 23)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol10/html/HSCA_Vol10_0014a.htm
Quote off
This confirms that the WC never took Odio seriously. They had their fairy tale and nothing, especially the truth, was going to get in the way of that.
Here is the conclusion of the HSCA regarding this issue.
Quote on
(111) It appears that Silvia Odio's testimony is essentially credible. From the evidence provided in the sworn testimony of corroborating witnesses, there is no doubt that three men came to her apartment in Dallas prior to the Kennedy assassination and identified themselves as members of an anti-Castro Cuban organization. From a judgment of the credibility of both Silvia and Annie Odio, it must be concluded that there is a strong probability that one of the men was or appeared to be Lee Harvey Oswald. No conclusion about the significance of that visit could be reached. The possibilities were considered that Oswald actually had some association with JURE, the anti-Castro groupheaded by Manolo Ray, and that Oswald wanted it to appear that he had that association in order to implicate the group, politically a left-of-center Cuban organization, in the Kennedy assassination.
(112) Additionally, no definite conclusion on the specific date of the visit could be reached. The possibility that it could have been as early as September 24, the morning of which Oswald was seen in New Orleans, exists. The visit was more likely on September 25, 26, or 27. If it were, then Oswald, judging from evidence developed by both the Warren Commission and this committee, had to have had access to private transportation to get to Dallas from New Orleans a situation that indicates possible conspiratorial involvement.
(113)The scope of its investigation in the Odio incident was limited as a result of the inadequate investigation performed by the FBI and the Warren Commission at the time. The lack of immediate recognition of the significance of the Odio incident produced a far from comprehensive investigation at the only time a comprehensive and perhaps, fruitful investigation would have been possible.
Submitted by:
GAETON J. FONZI,
Investigator. (Ibid., pp. 31-32)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol10/html/HSCA_Vol10_0018a.htm
Quote off
This tells us that the HSCA considered Odio’s testimony “essentially credible.” This is important as it means she needs to be taken seriously, but never was from official bodies. Why?
They further said that she was corroborated, her sister, and that the possibility of one of the three men at her apartment being LHO was a “strong possibility.” Again, why has this not been taken seriously by the WC and the HSCA in terms of accepting it and figuring out who was impersonating LHO in Mexico City? And why?
Because the patsy was already chosen and this would highlight the cover-up in play is why. This is why the “Odio incident was limited as a result of the inadequate investigation performed by the FBI and the Warren Commission at the time” because they weren’t worried about finding the truth. How anyone can defend their conclusion is beyond me.
What do you think? Was LHO at Odio’s apartment? Since it seems that he was, why was he there? Was he being used or was it part of an assignment?
spartacus-educational.com/1AASylviaOdio1.jpg
media.gq.com/photos/5582895b1177d66d68d51fa0/master/w_640%2Cc_limit/blogs-the-feed-2013-11-22-lee-harvey-oswald-changing-the-world-jfk-blog.jpg
The.Warren Commission (WC) claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) traveled to Mexico City, Mexico, in late September 1963, but ignored another incident that occurred at the same time as he was supposedly in Mexico. The WC had the FBI check this incident out, but all they were interested in doing was discrediting it.
The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) also looked at this incident during their tenure in the late 1970s. This is a key incident as it will show that LHO was not in Mexico City as the WC claimed and it will once again show that he was either working with Cubans or he was being impersonated.
********************************************
The reason the FBI and the WC had an issue with Odio’s story was that she believed, and was corroborated by her sister, that the American who visited her apartment with the two Cuban men was LHO. This couldn’t be allowed since the WC had him on his way to Mexico City at this time. Here is what the HSCA wrote about this.
Quote on
(64)Although Mrs. Odio suggested doubts that the men were in fact member of JURE, she was certain that the American who was introduced to her as Leon Oswald was Lee Harvey Oswald. Her sister, who was in the apartment at the time of the visit by the three men, and who stated that that she saw them briefly in the hallway when answering the door, also believed that the American was Lee Harvey Oswald. By referring to the date on which she moved from her former apartment, October 1, 1963, Mrs. Odio fixed the date of the alleged visit on the Thursday or Friday immediately preceding that date, i.e., September 26 or 27. She was positive that the visit occurred prior to October 1.
(65)During the course of its investigation, however, the Commission concluded that Oswald could not have been in Dallas on the evening of either September 26 or 27, 1963. It also developed considerable evidence that he was not in Dallas at any time between the beginning of September and October 3, 1963. (HSCA V. 10, pp. 19-20)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol10/html/HSCA_Vol10_0012a.htm
Quote off
Where is this considerable evidence? It sure isn’t in the twenty-six volumes of evidence that they published. The evidence presented to show that he went to Mexico City is all false.
New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison investigated this in the 1960s and concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was impersonated as he was never there. In the 1970s the HSCA assigned a group to investigate this area and they concluded the same thing in the Lopez Report.
So if he wasn’t in Mexico City, why couldn’t he be at Odio’s apartment? Because this could lead to the area of conspiracy that is why. Furthermore, the WC needed him in Mexico City because the CIA said that he was there. They had built a scenario that involved LHO meeting with the head of assassinations in the Western Hemisphere for the Soviet Union. It was all staged to make LHO more believable as the assassin of JFK.
The WC never questioned that this visit occurred, but instead insisted LHO was not the American due to his trip to Mexico City, Mexico. Therefore, it was imperative for them to show that LHO really went to Mexico City otherwise that would leave the door wide open for saying they were wrong in their conclusion.
The WC wrote the following about this issue in their Report (WCR) on page 321.
Quote on
The Commission has examined Oswald’s known or alleged contacts and activities in an effort to ascertain whether or not he was involved in any conspiracy may be seen in the investigation it conducted as a result of the testimony given by Mrs. Silvia Odio. The Commission investigated her statements in connection with its consideration of the testimony of several witnesses suggesting that Oswald may have been seen in the company of unidentified of Cuban or Mexican background. (WCR, pp. 321-322)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0173a.htm
Quote off
The WC never questioned this visit to Mrs. Odio’s, but rather insisted the American was NOT LHO. For this to be true they had to show LHO was somewhere else, but did they? Let’s take a look at what they wrote about his whereabouts.
Quote on
During the course of its investigation, however, the Commission concluded that Oswald could not have been in Dallas on the evening of either September 26 or 27, 1963. It also developed considerable evidence that he was not in Dallas at any time between the beginning of September and October 3, 1963. (WCR, p. 322)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0173b.htm
Quote off
This claim by the WC brings up a very important question—why was LHO receiving Texas unemployment when he was NOT in the area he filed for? Part of receiving unemployment is tied to a JOB SEARCH and NOT leaving the area without notification of your departure. However, here we are to believe he was off gallivanting in New Orleans or Mexico without telling the Texas Unemployment Commission and was still getting checks without reporting any effort to find a job.
After doing a little research on this issue I see in today’s world you can use the telephone or internet to file for a claim, but back in 1963 you had to report to your local workforce center to apply for a check and provide documentation showing your attempts to find a job. These were a requirement to receive benefits. How could LHO NOT be in Dallas and still do this? Why is this important you may be asking? Because the first part of establishing LHO’s whereabouts related to him cashing an unemployment check.
Quote on
Oswald is known to have been in New Orleans as late as September 23, 1963, the date on which Mrs. Paine and Marina Oswald left New Orleans for Dallas. Sometime between 4 p.m. on September 24 and 1 p.m. on September 25, Oswald cashed an unemployment compensation check at a store in New Orleans; under normal procedures this check would not have reached Oswald’s postal box in New Orleans until at least 5 a.m. on September 25. The store at which he cashed the check did not open until 8 a.m. Therefore, it appeared that Oswald’s presence in New Orleans until sometime between 8 a.m. and 1 p.m. on September 25 was quite firmly established. (WCR, pp. 322-323)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0174a.htm
Quote off
By using the incident of the unemployment check cashing as their basis for establishing his whereabouts the WC actually opened up a can of worms in terms of the questions I asked above. They wanted us to believe that LHO was filing for unemployment in Texas, but spending time in Louisiana! They even said the check would be mailed to him OUT OF STATE to his New Orleans P.O. Box! How can one be looking for a job in Dallas, Texas, and yet, be spending time in New Orleans?
Furthermore, based on the words in this paragraph quoted, how did they determine the whereabouts of LHO from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m.? The WC simply said the store opened at 8 a.m. and how do we know LHO did not go in then and then leave New Orleans after that? Why did the WC give LHO a FIVE-HOUR block to cash one check? They also said this was “firmly established”, but I don’t see any evidence doing this.
The WC then went on to acknowledge they could NOT show any firm evidence (how refreshing) showing how LHO could have gotten from New Orleans to Houston, Texas on the first leg of his journey to Mexico’s capital. They did say however the only time they had NO idea where he was came between the 1 p.m. in New Orleans on the 25th and 2:35 a.m. on September 26 at which time a bus left Houston for Laredo, Texas. The WC concluded the only way LHO could have gone to Dallas and then onto Houston to catch the 2:35 a.m. bus for Laredo would have been by airplane, and they firmly denounced this. They wrote this short statement about that topic.
Quote on
The only public means of transportation by which Oswald could have traveled from New Orleans to Dallas in time to catch his bus from Houston to Laredo, would have been the airlines. Investigation disclosed no indication that he flew between these points. (WCR, p. 323)
Quote off
What the WC did NOT investigate, and did NOT want to consider probably, is that perhaps LHO received a flight that was NOT recorded by a traditional airline. Think of David Ferrie as he was a pilot and he flew to and from Houston a good bit. Could LHO have gotten a ride from him? By the way, when the WC mentioned its “investigation” they were referring to the one the FBI was doing for them, and they said this on the next page of their report.
Quote on
In spite of the fact that it appeared almost certain that Oswald could not have been in Dallas at the time Mrs. Odio thought he was, the Commission requested the FBI to conduct further investigation to determine the validity of Mrs. Odio's testimony. The Commission considered the problems raised by that testimony as important in view of the possibility it raised that Oswald may have had companions on his trip to Mexico. (WCR, p. 324)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0174b.htm
Quote off
Here we see that the FBI was tasked with the investigation and requested to find out validity of Mrs. Odio’s statement. By doing this, we see the WC took her testimony seriously, but did NOT act accordingly later on in regards to it. The key part of the visit is the fact that there were two other people with LHO, if it was him, and this would mean he was NOT a loner, but rather a member of a group of some kind in late September 1963, so why would he be bereft of these same people on November 22, 1963? This is a serious point, therefore, it should have been taken seriously by the WC. But was it?
Sylvia Odio testified before the WC that three men visited her apartment and one of them was named “Leon Oswald”.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell Father McKann that the name Oswald was never used in your presence by any of these men?
Mrs. ODIO. Never was used except to introduce me, and the time when they left. They did not refer to him as Oswald.
Mr. LIEBELER. But they did in fact, introduce him as Leon Oswald?
Mrs. ODIO. And I shook hands with him.
It was vital for the WC to discredit this testimony because at the time of this visit the WC had LHO on his way to Mexico City all by himself. In Commission Exhibit (CE) 3146 we see a letter from J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) to the WC, dated September 21, 1964, regarding this issue.
Quote on
On September 16, 1964, we located one Loran Eugene Hall at Johnsondale. California… He recalled meeting a Cuban woman, Mrs. Odio, who lived in a garden-type apartment at 1080 Magellan Circle, Dallas, Texas. He said that at the time of his visit he was accompanied by Lawrence Howard, a Mexican-American from East Los Angeles and William Seymour from Arizona. He denied that Lee Harvey Oswald was with him during his visit to Mrs. Odio's apartment in September, 1963.
Hall stated that William Seymour is similar in appearance to Lee Harvey Oswald and that Seymour speaks only a few words of Spanish. In connection with the revelations of Hall you will note that the name Loran Hall bears some phonetic resemblance to the name Leon Oswald... (CE 3146, p. 1)
www.historymatt.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0435b.htm
Quote off
This letter by JEH was dated just six days before the WC released their report. In it we see that JEH says upon FBI investigation it was determined that the three men were Loran Hall, Laurence Howard and William Seymour. He further stated that Hall said that Seymour had a “similar appearance” to LHO. JEH then makes the ridiculous claim that Loren Hall “bears some phonetic resemblance” to Leon Oswald. This is absurd as they sound nothing alike. Most importantly he admits that Hall said that he met with a Cuban woman named Odio.
Here is what the HSCA wrote about these issues.
Quote on
(67)On September 16, 1964, the FBI located Loran Eugene Hall in Johnsandale, Calif. Hall has been identified as a participant in numerous anti-Castro activities. He told the FBI that in September of 1963 he was in Dallas, soliciting aid in connection with anti-Castro activities. He said he had visited Mrs. Odio. He was accompanied by Lawrence Howard, a Mexican-American from East Los Angeles and one William Seymour from Arizona. He stated that Seymour is similar in appearance to Lee Harvey Oswald; he speaks only a few words of Spanish, as Mrs. Odio had testified one of the men who visited her did. While the FBI had not yet completed its investigation into this matter at the time the report went to press, the Commission has concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was not at Mrs. Odio's apartment in September of 1963.
(68)The evidence did not support the definitive character of the Warren Commission's conclusions. The Commission had based its conclusion on two points: the "considerable" evidence that Oswald could not have been in Dallas on the evening Mrs. Odio alleged she saw him; (2) the FBI's report of Loran Eugene Hall's speculation that Odio misidentified his companion, William Seymour, as Lee Harvey Oswald. (3) Although the Warren Commission Report stated that Odio "fixed" the date of the alleged Oswald visit on September 26or September 27, she actually told the FBI that she was not at all positive about the exact date, (4) and that it might have been as early as September 25.(5)
(69)The Warren Commission asserted that Oswald left New Orleans by bus for Houston, on his way to Mexico, on September 25.(6) Yet there was no documentary evidence as substantiation, and neither the bus driver nor any passenger could recall seeing Oswald on that bus.(7) In fact, Warren Commission General Counsel J. Lee Rankin asked the FBI to investigate the possibility that Oswald left New Orleans on September 24, (8) when a neighbor saw him leaving his apartment carrying two suitcases.(9) Rankin pointed out in his letter to J. Edgar Hoover that:
Marina Oswald told the Commission that her husband told her he intended to leave New Orleans the very next day following her departure on September 23, 1963. She has also indicated that he told her an unemployment check would beforwarded to Mrs. Ruth Paine's address in Irving from his post office box in New Orleans.* * * It also seems impossible to us that Oswald would have gone all the way back to the Winn-Dixie store at 4303 Magazine Street to cash the unemployment check which he supposedly picked up at the Lafayette Branch of the Post Office when he could have cashed it at Martin's Restaurant, where he had previously cashed many of his Reily checks and one unemployment check. That is particularly true if he received the check on September 25, 1963, as previously thought, and had left his apartment with his suitcases the evening before.
(70)The FBI never came up with any evidence which resolved the questions raised in Rankin's request. In sum, the Warren Commission developed no hard evidence that could substantiate the fact that Oswald was or was not in Dallas during the time period Odio said she saw him. (HSCA X, pp. 20-21)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol10/html/HSCA_Vol10_0012b.htm
Quote off
The WC would write in their report, (WCR, p. 324) these were the three men who met with Sylvia Odio. The WC wrote the following regarding the issue of LHO being one of the men at Odio’s apartment.
Quote on
While the FBI had not yet completed its investigation into this matter at the time the report went to press, the Commission has concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was not at Mrs. Odio’s apartment in September 1963. (WCR, p. 334)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0174b.htm
Quote off
Here we see the WC state unequivocally that LHO was not at Odio’s apartment at the time they said he was on his way to Mexico City. No surprise there. But what did these men say about the claim of them meeting Mrs. Odio at her apartment? Let’s look at a FBI internal security memorandum for the answer to this question.
Quote on
Seymour said Sylvia Odio was not known to him …Howard denied any contact with a Cuban woman named Odio at Dallas. (Commission Document (CD) 1553, pp. 19-20; pp. 1-2 orig.)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11948#relPageId=21&tab=page
Quote off
This report shows that neither William Seymour or Laurence Howard said that they ever met Odio. Hall is more complicated. On September 16, 1964 he was interviewed by the FBI and said the following.
Quote on
Hall recalled meeting a Cuban woman, Mrs. Odio, who lived in Apartment A… (CD 1553, p. 29)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11948#relPageId=31&tab=page
Quote off
This is what Hall initially said, but he then rescinded it. He must have contacted the FBI because on September 20, 1964, he is reinterviewed and changes his statement.
Quote on
…[Hall] advises that information furnished by him on 9/16/64 was incorrect and was furnished by error…Hall denies this Cuban woman was ever contacted by him or his group for assistance…Howard denies that he accompanied Hall to meet a Cuban refugee named Silvia Odio. (CD 1553, pp. 29-30)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11948#relPageId=32&tab=page
Quote off
These statements are important in showing that JEH provided the WC with false information. By the date of his letter (9/21/64) to the WC, JEH had access to statements made by Seymour (9/18/64); Howard (9/20/64); and Hall (9/20/64) stating that they either did not know Odio, or never met with her during the time she said that she had been visited by the three men. In other words, he just made up what suited the interest of the official narrative.
Further corroboration for Hall and Howard comes from Celio Sergio Castro Alba.
Quote on
Mr. Castro stated that the name of SILVIA ODIO or anyone named ODIO had never been mentioned to him while with Hall or Howard in Dallas. (CD 1553, p. 23; p.5 orig.)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11948#relPageId=25&tab=page
Quote off
This further confirms that the three men named as being the ones to visit Odio in late September 1963 said they did not. Furthermore, there was no evidence showing that they did. JEH willfully passed on incorrect information. For if he had made a simple mistake he had six days to fix it before the WCR came out, but he didn’t. Thus, we have to think that he purposely mislead the WC (who most likely was just as happy) and the American people.
The HSCA summed this up this way.
Quote on
(71)Although the Warren Commission stated that the FBI had not yet completed its investigation at the time its report went to press, it was only 2 days after its September 16, 1964, interview of Loran Eugene Hall that the FBI interviewed William Seymour, who denied he ever had any contact with Silvia Odio and that he had been in Dallas with Hall in September 1963. The FBI susequently confirmed the fact that Seymour was working in Florida during September 1963. On September 23, 1964, the FBI interviewed Loran Hall'sother associate, Lawrence Howard. Howard also denied he had ever contacted Silvia Odio. The FBI then went back and re-interviewed Hall who then said that he had been accompanied on his trip to Dallas not by Seymour but by a Cuban friend he knew as "Wahito" and that he no longer recalled any contact with Odio. The FBI determined that "Wahito" was Celio Sergio Castro who, when interviewed, said he had never heard of or met Silvia Odio. On October 1, 1964, the FBI showed Silvia Odio photographs of Loran Hall, William Seymour, Lawrence Howard and Celio Sergio Castro. She examined the photographs and said that none of the individuals were identical to any of the three men who had come to her apartment door in Dallas.
(72)In view of the premature character of the Warren Commission's conclusion based on the impeached Loran Hall allegation and the unresolved question of Oswald's whereabouts at the time, the Odio incident remains one of the lingering enigmas in the original assassination investigation. Unfortunately, the nature of the incident makes it, from an investigative standpoint, particularly susceptible to the erosive effects of time. The canvassing, for instance, of both pro-Castro and anti-Castro groups in Dallas, New Orleans, and Miami in search of descriptive similarities to the men who visited Odio might have been fruitful at the time; today it is impractical. The construction of a composite sketch of the individuals when their features were still fresh in Odio's memory might have provided productive evidence 15 years ago; today it is of questionable value considering the natural adulteration of recall over that period of time. A search for the car that the men were driving might have been very productive at the time; today it is useless. The committee was, therefore handicapped by the limitations of the initial investigation and the paucity of evidence developed. The valid investigative approaches remaining were distressingly limited. Nevertheless, because of the potential significance of the Odio incident to a possible conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination, the committee decided that, in addition to pursuing any substantive leads it possible could, it would also attempt to verify the record regarding Silvia Odio's credibility and the details of her allegations. (Ibid., pp. 21-22)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol10/html/HSCA_Vol10_0013a.htm
Quote off
The HSCA admitted that it was “handicapped by the limitations of the initial investigation and the paucity of evidence developed”, and yet, those that defend the WC’s conclusion insist it was a valid and good investigation. Sure. The HSCA admitted this was a significant incident and look at how it was handled by the WC and the FBI. They set out to discredit it rather than investigate it.
This one issue shows that no information or evidence from the FBI should be taken at face value as FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) would do whatever it took to keep the lie of the official narrative going. Further examples of his dishonesty were the comment of a tree blocking the view of the sniper when the presidential limousine was on Houston Street, and the fact that Hosty’s name had been removed from LHO’s notebook (V, p. 112).
Nothing Hoover said or testified to can be accepted without checking it out first.
As the HSCA said, the WC published their Report without letting the FBI finalize their Odio investigation. The WC acknowledged this in their own report too!
Quote on
The Commssion specifically requested the FBI to attempt to locate and identify the two men who Mrs. Odio stated were with the man she thought was Oswald. (1)
On September 16, 1964, the FBI located Loran Eugene Hall in Johnsandale, Calif. He told the FBI that in September 1963 he was in Dallas, soliciting aid in connection with anti-Castro activities. He said he had visited Mrs. Odio. He was accompanied by Lawrence Howard, a Mexican-American from East Los Angeles, and one William Seymour from Arizona. He stated that Seymour is similar in appearance to Lee Harvey Oswald; he speaks only a few words of Spanish, as Mrs. Odio had testified one of the men who visited her did.
While the FBI had not yet completed its investigation into this matter at the time the report went to press, the Commission has concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was not at Mrs. Odio's apartment in September 1963. (WCR, p. 324)
(1) Letter to J. Edgar Hoover, dated August 28, 1964. It is listed as Commission Exhibit (CE) 3045.
CE 3045: www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0316a.htm
Quote off
The WC left us with the claims of Loran Hall instead of actually having the FBI find this out for sure for us. Why? This is nothing but supposition, but even in that form it would show LHO was being framed as there would be NO reason for them to call William Seymour “Leon Oswald” otherwise. So even in the attempt to show this was NOT LHO at Mrs. Odio’s the WC showed LHO was being framed! Remember, the next day Mrs. Odio received a call from the one calling himself “Leopoldo” in which he told her (1) that "Leon Oswald" was a former Marine; (2) that "Oswald" was a crack marksman; (3) that "Oswald" felt that President Kennedy should have been assassinated after the Bay of Pigs; and (4) that "Oswald" was "loco" and the kind of man who could do anything, like "getting" the Cuban underground or killing Castro. There would be NO reason to do this UNLESS they were framing LHO!
This makes it apparent to me, and I would think many people, that it does NOT really matter if the real LHO was at Mrs. Odio’s or not as the seeds were planted that LHO was a looney guy who had thoughts of whacking JFK. How many other times did this occur that we have NOT heard about? I doubt this was the only person they did this too in the months leading up to November 22, 1963.
Trying to help the FBI even claimed that the name Loran Hall had “some phonetic resemblance to the name Leon Oswald.” (CE 3146, p. 2)
CE 3146:
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0436a.htm
Please. Even the WC omitted this from their report as it really stretches the imagination, but unfortunately for us the WC offered NO better explanation in their Report. There is no excuse for how the WC failed to fully investigate this and come up with a sound, and supportable explanation for this visit Mrs. Odio said occurred, and which they believed.
To leave an issue as important as this unfinished and unresolved should cause everyone who studies this case pause as it makes you wonder what else they left unfinished too. It also shows us in a nutshell that the WC was NOT about finding the truth, but rather making things fix their pre-conceived theory of LHO acting alone. It had to be shown it was LHO at all costs and this constitutes a cover-up.
Here is what Odio told the HSCA about the WC.
Quote on
(76) The committee believed it important in its investigation to examine in detail the substance of Silvia Odio's allegations as well as their credibility. One of the problems faced by the committee was Odio's negative attitude toward a governmental investigation of the Kennedy assassination. Her attitude, she said, was the result of her relationship with the Warren Commission. She expressed sharp disillusionment with the Warren Commission and said that it was obvious to her that the Commission did not want to believe her story. A committee investigator noted that her whole demeanor was "one of sharp distrust of the Government's motives. She claims she feels she was just used by the Warren Commission for their own ends and she does not want to be put in the same position." Nevertheless, after contact was established by the committee, Odio's cooperation with the committee was excellent, and she voluntarily submitted to interviews and, subsequently, sworn testimony. (Ibid., p. 23)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol10/html/HSCA_Vol10_0014a.htm
Quote off
This confirms that the WC never took Odio seriously. They had their fairy tale and nothing, especially the truth, was going to get in the way of that.
Here is the conclusion of the HSCA regarding this issue.
Quote on
(111) It appears that Silvia Odio's testimony is essentially credible. From the evidence provided in the sworn testimony of corroborating witnesses, there is no doubt that three men came to her apartment in Dallas prior to the Kennedy assassination and identified themselves as members of an anti-Castro Cuban organization. From a judgment of the credibility of both Silvia and Annie Odio, it must be concluded that there is a strong probability that one of the men was or appeared to be Lee Harvey Oswald. No conclusion about the significance of that visit could be reached. The possibilities were considered that Oswald actually had some association with JURE, the anti-Castro groupheaded by Manolo Ray, and that Oswald wanted it to appear that he had that association in order to implicate the group, politically a left-of-center Cuban organization, in the Kennedy assassination.
(112) Additionally, no definite conclusion on the specific date of the visit could be reached. The possibility that it could have been as early as September 24, the morning of which Oswald was seen in New Orleans, exists. The visit was more likely on September 25, 26, or 27. If it were, then Oswald, judging from evidence developed by both the Warren Commission and this committee, had to have had access to private transportation to get to Dallas from New Orleans a situation that indicates possible conspiratorial involvement.
(113)The scope of its investigation in the Odio incident was limited as a result of the inadequate investigation performed by the FBI and the Warren Commission at the time. The lack of immediate recognition of the significance of the Odio incident produced a far from comprehensive investigation at the only time a comprehensive and perhaps, fruitful investigation would have been possible.
Submitted by:
GAETON J. FONZI,
Investigator. (Ibid., pp. 31-32)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol10/html/HSCA_Vol10_0018a.htm
Quote off
This tells us that the HSCA considered Odio’s testimony “essentially credible.” This is important as it means she needs to be taken seriously, but never was from official bodies. Why?
They further said that she was corroborated, her sister, and that the possibility of one of the three men at her apartment being LHO was a “strong possibility.” Again, why has this not been taken seriously by the WC and the HSCA in terms of accepting it and figuring out who was impersonating LHO in Mexico City? And why?
Because the patsy was already chosen and this would highlight the cover-up in play is why. This is why the “Odio incident was limited as a result of the inadequate investigation performed by the FBI and the Warren Commission at the time” because they weren’t worried about finding the truth. How anyone can defend their conclusion is beyond me.
What do you think? Was LHO at Odio’s apartment? Since it seems that he was, why was he there? Was he being used or was it part of an assignment?