The Crucial Silvia Odio Account and Why the WC Rejected It

[Michael T. Griffith]

Silvia Odio's account is crucial because it shows that Oswald was being framed for the assassination weeks before it occurred​, and because it suggests that someone was impersonating Oswald, either in Mexico City or in Dallas, before the assassination or that he had access to private air transportation.

In September 1963, two Hispanics using the "war names" of Leopoldo and Angelo visited the apartment of Silvia Odio in Dallas, Texas. Leopoldo and Angelo were accompanied by an American whom they introduced as "Leon Oswald." Silvia's sister Annie was in the apartment at the time and witnessed the meeting. "Leon" the American said virtually nothing. Leopoldo did most of the talking. He wanted Silvia, whose father had been deeply involved in anti-Castro efforts, to help in the anti-Castro cause. Silvia declined because she did not want to be involved with a group that would commit violence.

​Within 48 hours after the visit, Leopoldo phoned Silvia and told her that the American, "Leon Oswald," was an expert marksman and a former Marine. He said Oswald believed the Cubans should have shot JFK after the Bay of Pigs:

"He said that the Cubans, we did not have any guts because we should have assassinated Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs." (10 HSCA 27)

Disturbed by such talk, Silvia told Annie about the troubling phone call.

Soon after the assassination, Silvia and Annie independently recognized Oswald on TV as the "Leon Oswald" who had visited Silvia's apartment two months earlier. They were both very frightened and worried about their safety. They feared that the two anti-Castro Cubans and the American had been involved in JFK's death.
​
The WC had to reject Silvia Odio's credible and disturbing account because it was powerful evidence that anti-Castro Cubans had been framing Oswald for the assassination barely two months before it occurred. The Commission rejected her account even though David Slawson, the WC attorney who interviewed Silvia Odio, said Silvia was "checked out thoroughly” and that “the evidence is unanimously favorable, both as to her character and reliability, and as to her intelligence."​

​In fact, WC attorney William Coleman agreed with Slawson about Odio. Both Slawson and Coleman went so far as to suggest in an internal memo, based on the evidence they had uncovered, that Oswald, despite his public posture as a Castro sympathizer, was actually an agent of anti-Castro exiles.

The WC really didn't know what to do with Silvia Odio and her story​, since her sister Annie was ​i​n the room when Leopoldo introduced ​the American as "Leon Oswald."​ The WC asked the FBI to check into the matter. The FBI provided a fraudulent explanation for the Odio incident. The FBI explanation was based on a fabricated story told by Loran Hall, who said that he and two associates were the ones who visited the Odios, and that one of his associates looked a lot like Oswald. This led the WC to conclude that the Odio incident was a case of mistaken identity.

​Forced into a corner by the force and character of Odio's account, WC apologists have resorted to the lame claim that she was prone to hyper hysteria and panic attacks to the point of being mentally ill, even though her sister Annie backed up every essential part of her account, and even though the WC attorneys who investigated the matter believed she was credible.

The ​House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA​) concluded that Ms. Odio was credible​, that her account was truthful​, and that her account "indicates​" that the assassination included "possible conspiratorial involvement​."

​There are a number of detailed analyses of Silvia Odio's account available online. Two of them are reports prepared by the HSCA. Here are the ones I would recommend for starters:

The Odio Incident (HSCA)
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol10/pdf/HSCA_Vol10_AC_2_Odio.pdf

Narration by G. Robert Blakey, Chief Counsel and Staff Director (HSCA)
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/pdf/HSCA_Vol4_0926_1_Narration.pdf

"Understanding Silvia Odio," by Steve Bochan
https://cuban-exile.com/doc_001-025/doc0008.html

"Case Closed 30 Years On," by Martin Hay
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/case-closed-30-years-on-even-worse-part-2
​
"Silvia Odio's Visitors," by 22 November 1963 UK group
http://22november1963.org.uk/silvia-odio-visitors

[Benjamin Cole]

MTG-

I was never a fan of the Silvio Odio account, mostly because it is another pre-JFKA eyewitness account of LHO...but after LHO's face and name were splashed all over headlines nationally.

Some of these accounts, out of thousands of such LHO sightings, will be more compelling than others. Are they true  accounts? No one can tell.

Robert Blakey (to whom you linked) did a good job in outlining the Odio story, and in telling of the large anti-Castro Cuban community in the US.

At bottom, Odio recalls a visitor who resembled LHO, and that later the name "Leon Oswald" was used in a telephone conversation follow-up. That is recollection, months after the event. She "backed out" when she saw LHO's visage on a TV screen, and woke up in a hospital.

It is possible a splinter group within the anti-Castro community, possibly elements within Alpha 66, perped the JFKA. On September 25 it was made public that JFK would be visiting Dallas.

Was Alpha 66 planning to frame LHO as early as late September? If Alpha 66 was planning to frame LHO, why not leave behind a handwritten note, with the name "Oswald" on it? Why all the mumbo-jumbo about "Leon Oswald' and cryptic phone calls?

Why not a letter to a newspaper, mailed late Nov. 21, with Oswald taking credit for the JFKA?

Odio's recall may be accurate, or maybe not. It is a thin reed to stand on.

[Michael T. Griffith]

MTG-
I was never a fan of the Silvio Odio account, mostly because it is another pre-JFKA eyewitness account of LHO...but after LHO's face and name were splashed all over headlines nationally.

I don't understand this argument. The whole point of eyewitness recognition is that the witnesses saw the suspect before his name and face were all over TV, and that they recognized him once they saw him on TV/newspapers. This seems a bit like arguing against all suspect lineups because the witnesses said they saw him beforehand and then identified him in the lineup as the person they had seen.

I think it is telling that Silvia and Annie independently recognized Oswald as the "Leon Oswald" who visited them when they saw photos and footage of him on TV. Before that, they had never seen photos or footage of him.

Some of these accounts, out of thousands of such LHO sightings, will be more compelling than others. Are they true  accounts? No one can tell.

Even WC attorneys Slawson, Coleman, and arguably Liebeler found Silvia and her account credible. The very cautious Anthony Summers spent hours interviewing Silvia and Annie and came away thoroughly convinced they were credible and truthful, as did the HSCA investigators who interviewed them.

At bottom, Odio recalls a visitor who resembled LHO, and that later the name "Leon Oswald" was used in a telephone conversation follow-up. That is recollection, months after the event. She "blacked out" when she saw LHO's visage on a TV screen, and woke up in a hospital.

Doesn't this make her account all the more compelling, that she was shocked to the point of fainting when she recognized Lee Harvey Oswald as the Oswald who'd visited her apartment? This was an educated, successful woman. Every investigator who interviewed her found her to be serious and believable. Even her therapist vouched for her credibility when he was asked about her.

And keep in mind that Silvia and Annie got a prolonged, close-range look at "Leon Oswald." She and Annie saw him for at least 20 minutes from just a few feet away. 

Moreover, after Leopoldo's troubling phone call to Silvia, she told Annie about it.

Was Alpha 66 planning to frame LHO as early as late September? If Alpha 66 was planning to frame LHO, why not leave behind a handwritten note, with the name "Oswald" on it? Why not a letter to a newspaper, mailed late Nov. 21, with Oswald taking credit for the JFKA?

Someone pretty much did just that: The "Dear Mr. Hunt" note asking for guidance about his next "assignment." The "Hidell" money order and Klein's order form for a rifle (the wrong rifle, as it turned out). The "Hunter of Fascists" note on the back of 133-A DeMohrenschildt, which is accompanied by a date in a format that Oswald never, ever used--not to mention that the DeM family suspected the photo was planted in their belongings, and that the photo was clearly made from a higher-quality negative than the 133-A negative, i.e., a negative not in evidence, and was not developed with the same equipment as the other backyard photos.

Why all the mumbo-jumbo about "Leon Oswald' and cryptic phone calls?

What was cryptic about it? It was a clear statement that "Leon Oswald" believed that Cubans should have shot JFK after the Bay of Pigs. I don't see anything the least bit cryptic in such a plainly worded statement.

Odio's recall may be accurate, or maybe not. It is a thin reed to stand on.

I don't understand what criteria you're using to reach this judgment. It wasn't just Silvia's recall. It was also Annie's recall. Annie was the one who answered the door when Leopoldo, Angelo, and Leon Oswald showed up. She sat right next to Silvia the whole time they were there. She independently recognized Oswald on TV as the Oswald she had seen in the apartment, before she knew that Silvia likewise recognized him.

Far from being a thin reed, the Odio incident is a solid, corroborated account that was believed even by two WC staff attorneys (and arguably three of them), by the HSCA investigators, and by Anthony Summers. Even the uber-cautious Dr. David Kaiser believes Silvia Odio's account. As Kaiser notes, even the leaders of JURE, Manuel Ray and Rogelio Cisneros, believed Silvia was credible:

"Ray and Cisneros, the leaders of JURE, reported her [Silvia Odio]
to be intelligent, dedicated, of good character, and unlikely to
fabricate the episode of her meeting with Oswald." (The Road
to Dallas, Harvard University Press, 2008, p. 246)

[Benjamin Cole]

MTG--

I assume three men visited the Odios near the end of September 1963 (the exact date is yet uncertain, though I think one researcher nailed it down, sorry lost cite). One of the men looked like LHO. But he stood in the background, from what I understand.

It was decided on Sept. 25 that JFK would visit Dallas in 11/22.

Later, one of the three men (although I suppose it could be yet another party) called the Odios and said "Leon Oswald" was a former Marine and wanted to shoot JFK.

In those days before smartphones, answering machines, etc., neither meeting nor the phone call was recorded. This account is based only on recollections.

Well, witness statements are often iffy. There are a number of people who say they saw LHO and Jack Ruby together...but nothing solid ever seemed to come out.

Again, why all the mumbo-jumbo about meeting the Odios, and having "Leon Oswald" hide in the background during the initial Odios-three men meeting? Why a phone call later about "Leon Oswald?"

Why not mail a handwritten or typed note to the Odios, mentioning Oswald, with instructions to give the note to Odios' father, increasing the odds the handwritten note would be saved? The post-office cancellation on the envelope would be proof of time of delivery.

Or, as mentioned, mail a letter late Nov. 21 to the Dallas Morning News, mentioning LHO and taking credit for the assassination attempt on JFK? Framing LHO by murky meetings two months in advance of the JFKA...with the Odios sisters? What kind of iffy "planning" is that?

I think it is possible a splinter group of Alpha 66 framed LHO somehow, possibly taking advantage of his earnest Marxism. (Larry Hancock and David Boylan posit LHO was a true-blue Marxist and not a CIA or government asset).

That is, the Alpha 66'ers "left LHO holding the bag" on 11/22, while they escaped.

A problem with this is CE-399, the slug I posit Paul Landis found and which was discussed in a 11/22 FBI memo, which I think tends to verify Landis' account. So someone was shooting at JFK with an M-C rifle, in fact struck JFK in back. At 70 yards, the M-C was an adequate rifle. There were also, reportedly, three wild missed shots on 11/22. That suggests someone was shooting to intentionally miss.

In other items, a man similar in appearance to LHO was reportedly seen at the Alpha 66 house on Harlandale shortly before the JFKA. Was it in fact LHO?

But that's another problem with LHO. He was not a tall blonde Swede, or an obese Black man, and did not have flaming red hair. LHO was of average height and build. An average white guy. He was easy to mix up with other average guys.

We are on different pages on this one. The Odios meeting, for me, is a curiosity. And possibly just another false LHO sighting.

[Tom Graves]

There were, reportedly, three wild missed shots on 11/22.

I thought there were fifteen missed shots fired in three distinct bursts.

The last two significantly closer together than the first two.

[Michael T. Griffith]

MTG--

I assume three men visited the Odios near the end of September 1963 (the exact date is yet uncertain, though I think one researcher nailed it down, sorry lost cite). One of the men looked like LHO. But he stood in the background, from what I understand.

It was decided on Sept. 25 that JFK would visit Dallas in 11/22.

Later, one of the three men (although I suppose it could be yet another party) called the Odios and said "Leon Oswald" was a former Marine and wanted to shoot JFK.

In those days before smartphones, answering machines, etc., neither meeting nor the phone call was recorded. This account is based only on recollections.

Well, witness statements are often iffy. There are a number of people who say they saw LHO and Jack Ruby together...but nothing solid ever seemed to come out.

Again, why all the mumbo-jumbo about meeting the Odios, and having "Leon Oswald" hide in the background during the initial Odios-three men meeting? Why a phone call later about "Leon Oswald?"

Why not mail a handwritten or typed note to the Odios, mentioning Oswald, with instructions to give the note to Odios' father, increasing the odds the handwritten note would be saved? The post-office cancellation on the envelope would be proof of time of delivery.

Or, as mentioned, mail a letter late Nov. 21 to the Dallas Morning News, mentioning LHO and taking credit for the assassination attempt on JFK? Framing LHO by murky meetings two months in advance of the JFKA...with the Odios sisters? What kind of iffy "planning" is that?

I think it is possible a splinter group of Alpha 66 framed LHO somehow, possibly taking advantage of his earnest Marxism. (Larry Hancock and David Boylan posit LHO was a true-blue Marxist and not a CIA or government asset).

That is, the Alpha 66'ers "left LHO holding the bag" on 11/22, while they escaped.

A problem with this is CE-399, the slug I posit Paul Landis found and which was discussed in a 11/22 FBI memo, which I think tends to verify Landis' account. So someone was shooting at JFK with an M-C rifle, in fact struck JFK in back. At 70 yards, the M-C was an adequate rifle. There were also, reportedly, three wild missed shots on 11/22. That suggests someone was shooting to intentionally miss.

In other items, a man similar in appearance to LHO was reportedly seen at the Alpha 66 house on Harlandale shortly before the JFKA. Was it in fact LHO?

But that's another problem with LHO. He was not a tall blonde Swede, or an obese Black man, and did not have flaming red hair. LHO was of average height and build. An average white guy. He was easy to mix up with other average guys.

We are on different pages on this one. The Odios meeting, for me, is a curiosity. And possibly just another false LHO sighting.

Well, this is baffling. I just don't get your criteria. They seem unreasonable and arbitrary. I get the feeling you are determined to reject Silvia and Annie's accounts because they do not fit with your very small, limited conspiracy scenario, which you have every right to do.

To address a few of your points:

Silvia said Leon Oswald was only about 3 feet away from her during the 20-minute meeting, so he was not hiding in the background. He was in plain view from a very short distance for 20 minutes.

Leopoldo called Silvia less than 48 hours after the meeting, mentioned their meeting, renewed his request that she aid JURE, and then made the specific and incriminating statements about "Oswald." So this was not a different person calling Silvia. She surely recognized his voice after having heard him talk for 20 minutes less then 48 hours earlier. Leopoldo identified himself as such. The HSCA noted that Silvia's statements to the WC and the HSCA about the phone call were consistent.

Silvia immediately told Annie about the phone call.

When two witnesses independently recognize a suspect as the person they had seen earlier, this will be considered strong, credible evidence by any prosecutor, especially if the witnesses were so frightened that they were too afraid to contact the police and if the police only learned of their account from a third party who felt obliged to share the account after hearing it from the witnesses.

I've already addressed the "why didn't they do these things to frame him instead" argument. That's the kind of argument one can always make in any case involving a frame-up. One can always think of different or better ways that the perps could have framed someone.

However, I think the perps in the JFK case framed Oswald even more thoroughly than the alternate scenario you offer. They produced fake photos showing him holding the alleged murder weapon. They faked his handwriting (a rather easy thing to do in the intel world) on one of the backyard photos, and on a money order and order form to order a rifle. They impersonated him in Mexico City to paint him as a pro-communist hothead. They impersonated him in Dallas to make it seem like he was target-practicing to shoot JFK.

And, as part of the frame-up, Leopoldo told the daughter of a prominent anti-Castro Cuban that "Leon Oswald" was a crack shot and a former Marine who was "kind of loco" and who believed that Cubans were gutless for not shooting JFK after the Bay of Pigs. I still don't see how this can be considered the least bit cryptic or subtle.

Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree about the Odio incident.

[Benjamin Cole]

MTG-

There are many witness accounts in the JFKA, and they are sometimes wildly at odds.

For example, a witness told Inspector Sawyer of the DPD, that he (the witness) had seen a man run from the TSBD, in the wake of gunfire, carrying a Winchester, and the man was 5'10" 165 lbs.

That is the origin of the description that went out over DPD radio. Inspector Sawyer took the witness to be credible, and the description went out.

Was that witness telling the truth? Was Sawyer? I don't know.

In one interview, Amos Euins said the man in the TSBD6 sniper window used a Winchester. Euins also said he heard four shots.

What to make of this? Did the TSBD6 sniper use a Winchester? Fire four times?

On the BYP, the HSCA and Larry Hancock accept them as real. Hancock even explains that LHO had a letter to the editor published on one of the newspapers he held up in the one of the BYPs. The LHO gun orders are contentious, but the HSCA accepted them as "real." So does Larry Hancock.

LHO likely took a potshot at General Walker, although I suspect he intended to miss  Do we really know LHO's state of mind? What would LHO agree to?

You say Paul Landis' account to not true. I think it is likely true.

At bottom, witness credibility is in the eye of the beholder, as is all evidence in the JFKA.

Yes, I suspect a very small JFKA conspiracy. You suspect a large one. I think the odds are my side, but again--

Caveat emptor and draw your won conclusions.