The Fundamental Problem

[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.

[Oscar Navarro]

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.

Brought the wrong letter  That wouldn't bode well for Silvia Odio's credibility if that was the case as it would further add to the doubts about her emotional instability. The letter and translation was placed as evidence and made a Commission exhibit for anyone to see. It was there during the HSCA hearings and available to uber CTer Gaeton Fonzi who made Odio one of his major star witnesses for the HSCA and a major character in his book The Last Investigation. You think they wouldn't have noticed it was the wrong letter? IMHO, too much reliance was placed on Silvia's testimony about the contents of the letter and not enough on what Amador actually wrote. Silvia Odio's credibility as a witness has suffered one more hit and should join Antonio Veciana in the "I met Lee Harvey Oswald" fantasy club.

[John Iacoletti]

Maybe they should have subpeonaed Amador if they wanted to know what his letter meant.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.  You want Odio to be both credible and not credible at the same time.

Amador's letter still says nothing about men or apartment, or 26th or 27th of September, 1963, or war names, or JURE, or Cuban underground.

[Oscar Navarro]

Amador was limited to writing everything he could on just one side of the letter and Silvia's introduction of this letter as proof of her allegation should suffice even the most ardent critic that both Amador and Silvia are referring to the same incident. But you're not an ardent critic but a court jester whose only purpose is to entertain yourself with ridiculous remarks. I'm done with you. So long, sucker.