Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: The Fundamental Problem  (Read 8224 times)

Offline Oscar Navarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #170 on: February 08, 2019, 10:24:56 PM »
That's easy for you to say.  I could just as easily claim that Oswald was at Odio's apartment on the 26th or 27th, so he couldn't possibly have been on a Continental Trailways bus on that date.  Why are the McFarlands automatically more reliable than the Odios?

I'll tell you what's easy, JohnI. It's playing the role of Doubting Thomas/Devil's Advocate. The McFarland's have corroborating evidence while Silvia Odio only has her sister's alleged support of someone who looked like LHO was at her house. The Mexican Tourist Visa had Oswald entering Nuevo Laredo, Mexico time stamped on Sept 26, 1963. There's the additional paper trail and witness evidence that places Oswald in MC from Sept 26 - Oct 3. Nothing else backs Silvia's story. Even the alleged witnesses that she claims she told of the incident cast doubts on her claims. Father McKann  told SSA that Silvia told him that Eugenio (war name for a JURE member) was one of the men that came to visit her along with Oswald. Silvia denies this and claims Father McKann just got the names confused. Odio claims that she told both her psychiatrist Dr. Einspruch and a friend that three men had come to visit her before the assassination. Both deny this story. In fact, her friend Mrs. Connell said that Silvia told her after the assassination that she had met Oswald at anti-Castro meetings. Silvia denied this, and here's the kicker. Antonio Alentado was one of the JURE leaders in Dallas and it would have only been natural that if some guys had come to see Silvia as members of JURE she would have notified Alentado. She said she had intended to but .......forgot  :'(  Plus, as has already been stated Silvia said she told her father Amador that one of the men (plural) was Leopoldo when the fact is that Amador asked Silvia not to trust anyone until she got the guys name. Amador also refers ro the singular instead of the plural as to the amigo. No reference is made by Amador to more than one person having visited Silvia. So, she lied to Liebler!

Offline Oscar Navarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #171 on: February 08, 2019, 10:31:15 PM »
Where does Amador's letter say anything about anyone coming to her apartment or when or how many?

Read the letter. The link has been provided. In fact the most pertinent part has been underlined. Couldn't make it any easier. Besides the letter there's Silvia Odio's testimony.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #171 on: February 08, 2019, 10:31:15 PM »


Online Steve M. Galbraith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 271
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #172 on: February 09, 2019, 04:24:13 PM »
Read the letter. The link has been provided. In fact the most pertinent part has been underlined. Couldn't make it any easier. Besides the letter there's Silvia Odio's testimony.
Thanks for the link to the letter. I should have read it instead of relying on Odio's account of it.

There are several problems with her account with the main one being, as you indicate, the timeline. We're not sure how Oswald got to Houston but the evidence indicates that he was there on 26th. He arrived in Mexico City on the 27th after a 24 hour bus ride; so when exactly did he make this side trip to Odio's? And why? He was headed to the Cuban consulate after having spent most of the summer preparing his pro-Castro resume. What's the purpose in this trip?

Moreover Odio didn't tell the FBI or government about this encounter. She casually told a friend about it who then informed the FBI what Odio told her. That's really odd especially if, as Odio claimed, after seeing Oswald on television she passed out in an emotional shock or nervous breakdown.

Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2824
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #173 on: February 09, 2019, 09:42:11 PM »
I'll tell you what's easy, JohnI. It's playing the role of Doubting Thomas/Devil's Advocate. The McFarland's have corroborating evidence while Silvia Odio only has her sister's alleged support of someone who looked like LHO was at her house. The Mexican Tourist Visa had Oswald entering Nuevo Laredo, Mexico time stamped on Sept 26, 1963. There's the additional paper trail and witness evidence that places Oswald in MC from Sept 26 - Oct 3. Nothing else backs Silvia's story. Even the alleged witnesses that she claims she told of the incident cast doubts on her claims. Father McKann  told SSA that Silvia told him that Eugenio (war name for a JURE member) was one of the men that came to visit her along with Oswald. Silvia denies this and claims Father McKann just got the names confused. Odio claims that she told both her psychiatrist Dr. Einspruch and a friend that three men had come to visit her before the assassination. Both deny this story. In fact, her friend Mrs. Connell said that Silvia told her after the assassination that she had met Oswald at anti-Castro meetings. Silvia denied this, and here's the kicker. Antonio Alentado was one of the JURE leaders in Dallas and it would have only been natural that if some guys had come to see Silvia as members of JURE she would have notified Alentado. She said she had intended to but .......forgot  :'(  Plus, as has already been stated Silvia said she told her father Amador that one of the men (plural) was Leopoldo when the fact is that Amador asked Silvia not to trust anyone until she got the guys name. Amador also refers ro the singular instead of the plural as to the amigo. No reference is made by Amador to more than one person having visited Silvia. So, she lied to Liebler!

I've read Silvia Odio's testimony and I believe you're a bit confused ( which is understandable because she was also a bit confused)   

Silvia said she told her father Amador that one of the men (plural) was Leopoldo when the fact is that Amador asked Silvia not to trust anyone until she got the guys name.
The way I read that is Silvia had told her father that the man used his "war name" Leopoldo ....Her father didn't recognize that name and cautioned Silvia ...If the man returned to be sure to get his full name.



JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #173 on: February 09, 2019, 09:42:11 PM »


Offline Oscar Navarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #174 on: February 12, 2019, 02:37:48 AM »
Thanks for the link to the letter. I should have read it instead of relying on Odio's account of it.

There are several problems with her account with the main one being, as you indicate, the timeline. We're not sure how Oswald got to Houston but the evidence indicates that he was there on 26th. He arrived in Mexico City on the 27th after a 24 hour bus ride; so when exactly did he make this side trip to Odio's? And why? He was headed to the Cuban consulate after having spent most of the summer preparing his pro-Castro resume. What's the purpose in this trip?

Moreover Odio didn't tell the FBI or government about this encounter. She casually told a friend about it who then informed the FBI what Odio told her. That's really odd especially if, as Odio claimed, after seeing Oswald on television she passed out in an emotional shock or nervous breakdown.


I also fell into the trap of taking Odio's testimony at face value until I read Amador's letter. That just about convinced me that Silvia was just not a trustworthy witness and her account has to be treated with a generous portion of salt.

IMHO, Oswald didn't make the trip to Dallas. The evidence against him being at Odio's outweighs Odio's troubled testimony. Oswald was hoping to be in Cuba via Mexico and Castro's G-2 had to have assumed the CIA would have known Oswald had again defected so what use could Oswald pose for Castro other than as a propaganda tool; US Marine defects again from imperialist Yankees sort of stuff.

Offline Oscar Navarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #175 on: February 12, 2019, 02:46:18 AM »
I've read Silvia Odio's testimony and I believe you're a bit confused ( which is understandable because she was also a bit confused)   

Silvia said she told her father Amador that one of the men (plural) was Leopoldo when the fact is that Amador asked Silvia not to trust anyone until she got the guys name.
The way I read that is Silvia had told her father that the man used his "war name" Leopoldo ....Her father didn't recognize that name and cautioned Silvia ...If the man returned to be sure to get his full name.

That is just patently stupid. As a member of JURE Silvia would never reveal the "war name" in a letter guaranteed to be intercepted by Castro authorities. IMHO, what Amador meant was to caution Silvia not to trust anyone she didn't know claiming to be from JURE until she did get to know the person and could be trusted with whatever the situation dictated.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #175 on: February 12, 2019, 02:46:18 AM »


Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2824
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #176 on: February 12, 2019, 03:21:27 PM »
That is just patently stupid. As a member of JURE Silvia would never reveal the "war name" in a letter guaranteed to be intercepted by Castro authorities. IMHO, what Amador meant was to caution Silvia not to trust anyone she didn't know claiming to be from JURE until she did get to know the person and could be trusted with whatever the situation dictated.

A war name was an alias.... Leopoldo was an alias... So why wouldn't Silvia have told her father that a man named "Leopoldo" had knocked on her door??

Offline Oscar Navarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #177 on: February 12, 2019, 07:09:35 PM »
A war name was an alias.... Leopoldo was an alias... So why wouldn't Silvia have told her father that a man named "Leopoldo" had knocked on her door??

Because you don't want to give the enemy any information that could be used against you.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #177 on: February 12, 2019, 07:09:35 PM »


Online Steve M. Galbraith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 271
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #178 on: February 12, 2019, 07:31:56 PM »
A war name was an alias.... Leopoldo was an alias... So why wouldn't Silvia have told her father that a man named "Leopoldo" had knocked on her door??
Question: Amador wrote the letter while he was still in prison. Do you think the Cuban authorities would let him send a letter, from prison, to Silvia exposing their infiltration (or attempted infiltration) of the JURE in this alleged meeting/event?

If these men were Cuban agents I doubt that the Cuban authorities holding Amador would let him give Silvia any evidence exposing them.

Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2824
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #179 on: February 12, 2019, 09:39:50 PM »
Question: Amador wrote the letter while he was still in prison. Do you think the Cuban authorities would let him send a letter, from prison, to Silvia exposing their infiltration (or attempted infiltration) of the JURE in this alleged meeting/event?

If these men were Cuban agents I doubt that the Cuban authorities holding Amador would let him give Silvia any evidence exposing them.


I donno.... Silvia's father simply told her to be careful.... That's something any father would do....  It doesn't specify that the men might be Castro's agents. 
« Last Edit: February 12, 2019, 09:41:29 PM by Walt Cakebread »

 

Mobile View