The Fundamental Problem

[John Iacoletti]

Amador refers to a single person so that would be one. When can only be the dates Silvia claims the 26th or 27th of September, 1963. Where can only be where Silvia lived.

Since Amador doesn't mention anything about her apartment or a date in the letter, how do you know the "friend" refers to that incident at all?

[Oscar Navarro]

Since Amador doesn't mention anything about her apartment or a date in the letter, how do you know the "friend" refers to that incident at all?

Because Silvia said so in her testimony. She told Leopoldo that she was going to write to her father about them and.....

Mrs. ODIO. This first opinion that I mentioned to my psychiatrist, I did not give it a second thought. I forgot to tell Alentado about it; except 3 days later I wrote to my father after they came, and mentioned the fact that the two men had called themselves friends of his. And later in December, because the letter takes a long time to get here, he writes me back, "I do not know any of these men. Do not get involved with any of them."
Mr. LIEBELER. You have already given us a copy of the letter that you received from your father in which he told you that these people were not his friends, and told you not to get involved with them?
Mrs. ODIO. That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell your father the names of these men when you wrote to him?
Mrs. ODIO. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Your father did not, however, mention their names in his letter, did he?
Mrs. ODIO. He mentioned their war names, because this was the only thing I knew. I probably put an Americano came too, two Cubans with an American, and I gave the names of the Cubans.

Add to that Silvia lived in an apartment.

Mrs. ODIO. The American was in the middle. They were leaning against the staircase....

Mr. LIEBELER. You mentioned when your sister saw Oswald's picture on television that she almost passed out. Did she recognize him, do you know, as the man that had been in the apartment?

[John Iacoletti]

Because Silvia said so in her testimony. She told Leopoldo that she was going to write to her father about them and.....

Mrs. ODIO. This first opinion that I mentioned to my psychiatrist, I did not give it a second thought. I forgot to tell Alentado about it; except 3 days later I wrote to my father after they came, and mentioned the fact that the two men had called themselves friends of his. And later in December, because the letter takes a long time to get here, he writes me back, "I do not know any of these men. Do not get involved with any of them."

Where in this particular letter (Odio Ex.1) does Amador say "I do not know any of these men. Do not get involved with any of them."?  Doesn't sound like he's referring to the same incident at all.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your father did not, however, mention their names in his letter, did he?
Mrs. ODIO. He mentioned their war names, because this was the only thing I knew. I probably put an Americano came too, two Cubans with an American, and I gave the names of the Cubans.

Ok, where in this particular letter are "war names" mentioned?

Add to that Silvia lived in an apartment.

Amador's letter makes no reference to "this who says he is my friend" meeting her at her apartment.

[Oscar Navarro]

Where in this particular letter (Odio Ex.1) does Amador say "I do not know any of these men. Do not get involved with any of them."?  Doesn't sound like he's referring to the same incident at all.

Ok, where in this particular letter are "war names" mentioned?

Amador's letter makes no reference to "this who says he is my friend" meeting her at her apartment.

Where in this particular letter (Odio Ex.1) does Amador say "I do not know any of these men. Do not get involved with any of them."?  Doesn't sound like he's referring to the same incident at all.
Ok, where in this particular letter are "war names" mentioned?

This is from Silvia Odio's testimony.  The purpose of which is to show you that Silvia and Amador are referring to the same incident. As a corollary to the exchange I found that Silvia lied to Liebler when she testified that she mentioned two men and possibly even Oswald to Amador in her letter. This meeting ocurred in Silvia's apartment and it does not require confirmation by Amador.

[John Iacoletti]

Where in this particular letter (Odio Ex.1) does Amador say "I do not know any of these men. Do not get involved with any of them."?  Doesn't sound like he's referring to the same incident at all.
Ok, where in this particular letter are "war names" mentioned?

This is from Silvia Odio's testimony.  The purpose of which is to show you that Silvia and Amador are referring to the same incident. As a corollary to the exchange I found that Silvia lied to Liebler when she testified that she mentioned two men and possibly even Oswald to Amador in her letter. This meeting ocurred in Silvia's apartment and it does not require confirmation by Amador.

That's a circular argument.  There is nothing in Amador's letter that would indicate that he is talking about this same incident.

[Oscar Navarro]

That's a circular argument.  There is nothing in Amador's letter that would indicate that he is talking about this same incident.

Circular argument! What the heck are you talking about? What I've been doing is to patiently point out that you can't tell the difference between what Silvia Odio testified to and what Amador wrote in his letter. For the last time I'll try to make it as clear as possible and quote from Silvia Odio's testimony that proves Amador was replying to the so called "Odio Incident"., i.e the 26th or 27th Sept visit by men claiming to be his friends; (Leopoldo, the scrubby Mexican looking guy and Leon Oswald added for a little extra flavor). Just so that we're clear, while Silvia claims that she mentioned at least two individuals Amador only refers to one. That's just one of the lies Silvia told Liebler.

Mrs. ODIO. This first opinion that I mentioned to my psychiatrist, I did not give it a second thought. I forgot to tell Alentado about it; except 3 days later I wrote to my father after they came, and mentioned the fact that the two men had called themselves friends of his. And later in December, because the letter takes a long time to get here, he writes me back, "I do not know any of these men. Do not get involved with any of them."

This is what Amador actually wrote;

"Tell me who this is who says he is my friend -- be careful, I do not have any friend who might be here, through Dallas, so reject his friendship until you give me his name. You are alone, without men to protect you and you can be deceived."

If it was a different incident why would Silvia bring the letter to the interview as proof of this alleged incident (I say alleged because I'm beginning to doubt that it even ocurred)?

[John Iacoletti]

Mrs. ODIO. This first opinion that I mentioned to my psychiatrist, I did not give it a second thought. I forgot to tell Alentado about it; except 3 days later I wrote to my father after they came, and mentioned the fact that the two men had called themselves friends of his. And later in December, because the letter takes a long time to get here, he writes me back, "I do not know any of these men. Do not get involved with any of them."

Given that this letter doesn't say "I do not know any of these men. Do not get involved with any of them" or anything even remotely similar to that, it must not be the same letter she's talking about.

I'm asking you how you know that Amador is talking about anybody coming to Silvia's apartment on the 26th or 27th of September, 1963 (since the letter says nothing about men or apartment, or 26th or 27th of September, 1963, or war names, or JURE, or Cuban underground), and your only answer is that he must be talking about that because she brought the letter to the interview.  So what?  That tells you nothing about what Amador was referring to.  Maybe she just brought the wrong letter.